The Price of Prestige: Does Prestige Seeking Affect Management Decisions to Increase Tuition in Private Nonprofit Higher Education?
By Jane Sadd Smalec
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of University of Maryland University College, in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Management
Advisory Committee: Dr. Leslie Dinauer Dr. Sharon Hadary Dr. Dennis Winters
June 2014 Abstract
Tuition at American colleges and universities has been rising faster than inflation for more than 40 years. Public opinion research shows that the majority of Americans increasingly believes that college is becoming unaffordable. Scholars have viewed the problem of rapidly rising and increasingly unaffordable tuition as an economic problem, a cost problem, and as a political problem (because of changes in state financial support of public higher education). The issue has not been looked at as a management problem. Yet as press releases evidence, decisions about changes to tuition are so important they often require approval by boards of trustees, thus, placing responsibility for the problem firmly on the shoulders of higher education managers and administrators.
This study takes as its starting point that tuition setting is not a routine, but a strategic, decision. Senior leaders employ managerial cognition to evaluate strategic decisions against a mental map of their environment and competition. For private nonprofit higher education organizations, increasing prestige, the organizational objective, and the associated prestige-seeking strategies are central to those mental maps. The isomorphic forces of institutional theory reinforce the selection and implementation of similar strategies. The research question, therefore, is whether there is evidence that prestige seeking is present in the mental maps of decision makers when setting tuition increases. The researcher conducted a qualitative directed content analysis of documents published on the websites of private nonprofit universities in the U.S. News and World Report list of the top 200 national universities. The content analysis found evidence at some universities of an association between tuition increases and prestige seeking strategies.
Changing managerial cognition is not easy. Although awareness of the issue of affordability seems to be recognized in speeches by leaders of universities, the annual decision to increase tuition remains in the range of two percentage points higher than the rate of consumer price inflation. More steps must occur before changes in manager mental maps take place. Tuition increases must be taken out of the realm of routine decisions and looked at through a different lens. This study shows that administrators, faculty, and trustees have not revised their mental models and have not changed their interpretation of the environment for their universities. When mental models change, we might expect a different, and lower, level of annual tuition increase.
Keywords: Tuition, prestige seeking, strategic cognition, cognitive strategic groups, higher education, content analysis, institutional theory, isomorphic forces.
ii Acknowledgements
This journey began nearly 40 years ago as I was leaving England to enroll in a second master’s degree in America. My sister, Prue, asked why I was enrolling another master’s degree, and not a terminal degree. She wanted to address me as “Doctor.” Well I held onto that thought until the fall of 2010 when the opportunity finally arose to enroll in the program of my dreams and aspirations. So my first thank you goes to Prue for sowing that seed.
Throughout my career, I have had some wonderful mentors who have encouraged me to challenge brashly the conventional way of thinking and to look at problems from multiple different angles. The first mentor I would like to thank specifically is Andy
Rosen, president of Kaplan Inc. and Kaplan University, who lit the fire of a passion to learn about business models in higher education in the United States. The second is Dr.
Joe Cronin, who, in so many ways, has been years ahead of the curve in recognizing the issues that stem from prestige seeking by higher education organizations and who always has a twinkle in his eye and a story to tell about his experiences as a senior academic leader.
As the 4 years at UMUC have flown by, I have grown years younger and hundreds of years wiser. Of greatest pleasure has been sharing the journey with a cohort of accomplished management practitioners who have now become fully fledged scholar practitioners. The thought of graduating together has sustained my efforts over the last few more lonely months. Thank you all for the rich diversity of experience and perspectives you brought to our online and in-the-classroom interactions, for the advice and support you offered on the days or weeks when the going was tougher, and for the
iii pleasure of celebrating success together as we left one semester behind only to rise to the challenge of the next one.
To UMUC faculty members who have been both encouraging and demanding of the best, thank you. The greatest thanks go to my dissertation committee, Dr. Dinauer,
Dr. Hadary and Dr. Winters. First, to Dr. Winters, thank you for steering me with great reading suggestions from a positivist to more interpretivist perspective and for suggesting
Mapping Strategic Thought (Huff, 1990) as the foundational theoretical construct for the problem this dissertation addresses. Second, thank you to Dr. Hadary for your incredible patience and incorrigibly upbeat attitude even on the most down of all down days, and for identifying that disease we laughingly called intellectual attention deficit disorder, which you kindly rechristened the desire to go to the deepest and broadest level of understanding even in the face of disastrous time crunches. Third, thank you to Dr.
Dinauer for your forthright, extensive, and detailed feedback and for insisting on only the highest standards of quality. Thank you for being the toughest critic and the most constructive supporter, but thank you most of all for seeing and sharing that moment of intellectual excitement when you suggested I evaluate content analysis for the study methodology and all the pieces suddenly fell into place.
Lastly, thank you to my family, my sons, Tom and James, for sharing the journey, for your uncritical encouragement (How few days did I need to write those 100 pages?), and the joy of your company. I hope you too will eventually love learning as much as I do.
iv Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
Problem Statement...... 4
Research Questions...... 8
Significance and Purpose of Study ...... 8
Scope and Limitations...... 11
Dissertation Organization ...... 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review...... 16
The Economics of Pricing...... 17
Neoclassical Economic Theory...... 17
Price as an Indicator of Quality ...... 18
Price, Quality, and Status...... 20
The Economics of Nonprofit Organizations...... 21
The Nondistribution Constraint ...... 22
Nonprofit Organization Objectives...... 23
Other Arguments About the Unique Economics of Higher Education...... 25
Prestige, Status, Reputation, Legitimacy, and Quality ...... 27
Theoretical Lenses ...... 33
Institutional Theory and Isomorphism...... 33
Management Cognition...... 43
Application of Propositions in Higher Education...... 55
Prestige Seeking by Universities ...... 58
Imitation of Prestige-Seeking Strategies...... 64
Decision makers’ Mental Maps in Connection With Tuition Increase...... 68
v Summary of Literature about Prestige Seeking and Prestige Seeking
Strategies by Universities ...... 71
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 76
Management Research Methodologies ...... 77
Content Analysis...... 78
Content Analysis in Management Research ...... 80
Types of Content Analysis...... 84
Reliability and Validity of Content Analysis...... 86
Process of Content Analysis ...... 87
Generic Content Analysis Procedure: Definition of Steps ...... 88
Modified Procedure for Deductive Content Analysis Such as Directed
Content Analysis...... 91
Content Analysis Process in This Research...... 92
Reliability and Validity in This Study ...... 100
Expert Stakeholders ...... 101
Expert Stakeholders Role...... 101
Expert Stakeholders ...... 102
Chapter 4: Findings...... 103
Content Analysis Findings...... 104
Decision makers...... 116
Evidence of Prestige-Seeking ...... 119
Framing the Tuition Increase Decision With Cognitive Strategic
Groups...... 121
Imitation of Prestige Seeking Strategies ...... 122 vi Experts’ Feedback...... 127
Discussion of Findings from Content Analysis ...... 129
Quality of Conclusions ...... 135
Alternative Interpretations ...... 136
Chapter 5: Implications, Limitations, And Summary...... 138
Implications for Management...... 139
Implications of Emerging Trends ...... 146
Limitations ...... 152
Areas for Future Research ...... 153
Summary...... 156
References...... 158
Appendix A: Biographies of Members of the Expert Stakeholders ...... 180
Appendix B: Private Nonprofit Colleges and Universities in the 2014 USNWR Top
200...... 182
Appendix C: Colleges and Universities for Which no Data Could be Located About
Identity or Role of Participants in the Tuition Increase Decision...... 186
Appendix D: Content Analysis – Identity of Decision Makers ...... 189
Appendix E: Tuition Increases and Prestige Seeking ...... 194
Appendix F: Tuition Increases and Strategic Cognitive Groups ...... 209
Appendix G: Tuition Increases and Student Quality/Admission Selectivity...... 219
Appendix H: Tuition Increases and Faculty Quality or Research ...... 228
Appendix J: Tuition Increases and Prestige Seeking Through Buildings...... 241
Appendix K: Tuition Increases and New Programs ...... 250
vii List of Figures
1 Traditional Demand Curve and Upward Sloping Demand Curve ...... 19
2 Relationship of Content Analysis to Toulmin’s Theory of Argumentation ...... 80
3 Elicited Cognitive Taxonomy of a Managing Director of a Scottish Knitwear
Firm...... 83
4 Results of Search on Website of Southern Methodist University...... 94
5 Cognitive Model of Strategic Change Process...... 142
viii List of Tables
1 Summary of Reported Scholarly Research About Prestige Seeking Strategies
by Universities ...... 71
2 Prestige Seeking Strategies and Behaviors of Universities Abstracted From
Scholarly Literature ...... 75
3 Comparison of Process for Inductive and Deductive Content Analysis...... 91
4 Criteria for Excluding Documents From Content Analysis...... 95
5 Types of Documents Included in Content Analysis ...... 106
6 Types and Dates of Meeting for Which Meeting Records were Retrieved ...... 111
7 Count of Documents With “Tuition Increase” and Prestige Seeking Content or
a Prestige Seeking Strategy...... 133
ix The Price of Prestige 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
According to the College Board’s 2011 edition of Trends in College Pricing
(Baum & Ma, 2011), “Over the decade from 2001–02 to 2011–12, published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year institutions increased at an average rate of 2.6% per year beyond inflation” (p. 3). At public 4-year colleges, the comparable statistic was
5.6% in excess of the general rate of inflation. Fifteen percent of undergraduates in private nonprofit universities attended institutions that raised their tuition by more than
6% between 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 and 25% attended institutions that raised their tuition by more than $1,600 between these two academic years. These data confirm and continue a trend that dates back to 1958. The issue of high rates of increase in tuition is not confined to undergraduate education. According to data published in the Digest of
Education Statistics (Snyder & Dillow, 2012), graduate program tuition at private colleges rose by 48% in constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) between 1989–1990 and
2010–2011 compared to 52% for undergraduate tuition at such colleges. The cost of higher education in the United States has risen at a rate faster even than the cost of healthcare over the last 10 years (Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011).
Observing that the rate of increase of tuition in excess of inflation is not sustainable, the Economist magazine asked, how can colleges do more with less
(Wooldridge, 2011) and how can degrees be re-engineered to cost less. A Pew Research
Center poll of 2,142 adults conducted in March 2011 found that 75% of respondents disagreed with the statement “College costs are such that most Americans can afford to pay for a college education” (Taylor, Parker, Fry, & Cohn, 2011, p. 126) and 57% said that colleges fail to provide students with good value for money spent. The Price of Prestige 2 What makes the sustained increases in tuition surprising is that the rise has continued to take place in spite of attempts by policy makers every decade to address it.
In 1995, public concern about college affordability led to the creation of the National
Commission on the Cost of Higher Education (1998), which reported that it was convinced that
The simple truth is that no single factor can be identified to explain how and why college costs rise. The Commission suspects that part of the underlying dynamic is the search for academic prestige and the academic reward systems governing higher education. (p. 24)
The commission’s first recommendation was that the major onus for strengthening cost control be placed on higher education institutions. Its second recommendation was for improved market information and public accountability. However, these actions did not stop tuition from continuing to increase at a rate well ahead of the rate of consumer price inflation.
A decade later, in 2005, another commission was appointed to address the future of higher education. Known as the Spellings Commission, after the Secretary of
Education who created it, the mandate of this commission was broader—how best to improve the United States system of higher education and to ensure that its graduates are well prepared for the workforce of the future. The commission addressed access, accountability, cost, and affordability. This commission reported in 2006 that American higher education had become increasingly risk adverse, at times self-satisfied and unduly expensive. It found that “in addition, colleges and universities have few incentives to contain costs because prestige is often measured by resources, and managers who hold down spending risk losing their academic reputations” (U.S. Department of Education,
2006, p. 20). This commission also recommended improved accountability about costs The Price of Prestige 3 and prices, adding in accountability about outcomes, along with a focused program of cost cutting and productivity improvements.
Unsatisfied with progress, in 2012, President Barack Obama announced a new
“blueprint” for keeping college affordable. He called on Congress to enact legislation to revise the formula for certain federal student aid programs to withhold funds from states which reduce their appropriations for higher education. To date no such legislation has been presented to Congress for discussion, even at the committee level.
Both the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education and the Spellings
Commission identified that reputation and prestige might play a role in the rising cost of higher education. The idea that higher education organizations seek to enhance their prestige or reputation has been around for nearly 100 years. Veblen (1918) wrote,
When one calls to mind the habitual parochialism of governing boards of these seminaries of higher learning and the meticulous manoeuvres of their executives, seeking each to enhance his own prestige and the prestige of the institution [emphasis added] of his own establishment. (p. 41)
More recently, Dill (2003) observed that “A major contributor to the imperfections in the US higher education market is the inability of consumers to differentiate between an honest academic ‘reputation,’ earned through demonstrably effective education, and ‘prestige,’ an image of questionable social benefit” (p. 153).
Thus the question of a potential relationship between prestige seeking and tuition seems worthy of further research.
One of the main ways by which universities assess the success of their prestige seeking is through the rankings published by periodicals such as the US News and World
Report (USNWR) or the London-based Times Higher Education. Rankings of universities by dimensions such as faculty with terminal degrees have been published for over 100 The Price of Prestige 4 years. Rankings both confer prestige, and drive prestige seeking (Pusser & Marginson,
2013). In the USA, the Gourman Report, a ranking of undergraduate programs at the department level, was first published in 1967 and lasted until 1997. Next, in 1973, with the intent of creating a framework for the analysis of policy issues in higher education, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education established its original classification of institutions. Not only did the public view this classification system as a hierarchical prestige and quality scheme, but also the classification has influenced university strategy as those organizations set goals to move up the prestige hierarchy and attain a new level in the classification system such as “Research 1.” Since 1983, USNWR has annually published rankings of American universities. Other organizations such Shanghai Jiao
Tong University in China, and periodicals such as Times Higher Education in the United
Kingdom began publishing global reputation rankings in 2003 and 2004 respectively.
Toma (2012) remarked that higher education institutions in the United States obsess over rankings data and are fixated on their upwards mobility. Winston (1999) described the situation as a positional arms race in which there is a lot of action, a lot of spending, a lot of worry, and not much change. Hazelkorn (2008) characterized the rankings as driving geopolitical reputation race. Scholars have already studied prestige seeking for its positive and negative effects so the question is, how has tuition been treated in these studies?
Problem Statement
Scholars from disciplines including economics and higher education economics, and administrators, politicians, journalists and others have studied,written or spoken extensively about the issue of the rate of increase of tuition for higher education. Some studies have focused on cost (e.g., Archibald & Feldman, 2008) rather than price; some The Price of Prestige 5 have focused on the lack of productivity improvement (e.g., McPherson & Winston,
1993). Others have studied specific cost drivers in higher education such as the rate of growth of the cadre of administrators faster than that of other classes of employees, or the increase in government regulation and its concomitant reporting burden. Baumol and
Bowen (1966) argued that the cost trajectory for higher education is similar to that of other service industries that use highly educated labor. Thus, as an economy wide phenomenon cost pressure is not within the control of management or administrators.
Whatever the cause or the argument, the problematic behavior of institutions continues.
Studies to date have not identified interventions that will solve the problem of the excessive rate of increase in tuition.
Scholars from a range of social studies disciplines and from management have also studied prestige seeking (the economists’ word) or status seeking (the sociologists’ word) by organizations in general and by universities in particular. Scholars and analysts of higher education almost take it for granted today that “prestige is to higher education as profits are to corporations” (Selingo, 2014, para 3). Prestige seeking in higher education has benefits to the prestige seeker if that university is successful in, for example, enrolling students of higher quality, but it is also a zero sum game: if one university rises in prestige, another falls. In the positional arms race, a term coined by
Winston (1999), universities engage in wastefully costly competition with more focus on image than on substance (Frank, 2001; Gioia & Corley, 2002). The question of a relationship between tuition and prestige seeking is the question taken up by this researcher.
Setting tuition is a decision that universities face every year and it appears to be a decision of great importance requiring approval from the highest level of governance. The Price of Prestige 6 Many press releases about tuition increases begin with “The Dartmouth Board of
Trustees approved a 4.8% tuition increase” (Dartmouth Office of Public Affairs, 2009) or
“The Cornell University Board of Trustees approved planning parameters . . . that entail an across-the-board tuition increase” (Kelley, 2012). Scholars have developed theories about decision making and strategic decisions at the individual, group and organizational levels and from various perspectives seeking to understand, among other things, process and outcomes, how context affects both process and outcomes, and how biases creep in.
Viewing the tuition increase decision through the perspective of strategic and management cognition theory might provide insight into why the problem continues, and what organizations and decision makers need to do differently. Scholars have determined that cognition plays a major role in the scoping of a strategic problem and the search for solutions (Schwenk, 1988). Simon (1997) originated that managers simplify their mental representations of complex problems such as strategic issues. Gavetti and Rivkin (2007) explored strategy as both a mental and a physical activity with cognition preceding action. Cognitive scientists and scholars of managerial cognition such as Huff (1990) refer to the explicit representation of this mental activity as a mental map. Both organizational and personal values influence this map as well as heuristics. Mental maps show the concepts that managers, groups or organizations pay attention to and what phenomena are associated (Huff, 1990).
Price and prestige are linked in the minds of prospective students and their families as they decide what universities to apply to or to attend (Thelin, 2011). The problem that this scholar–practitioner study addresses is whether price and prestige seeking are linked in the minds of decision makers at the university as they consider the annual tuition increase. With theoretical and empirical support for prestige as the The Price of Prestige 7 strategic objective of higher education institutions, and assuming that price or tuition is a strategic decision, the problem that this researcher addresses is whether evidence exists that prestige seeking strategies are a part of the mental map or mindsets of decision makers at colleges and universities as they go through the annual process of setting tuition for the next academic year.
This research is important because it fills a gap in the scholarly literature, a gap that needs to be translated into action by decision makers. Pricing and prestige seeking have been studied separately, but not together. In the scholarly literature, economists have addressed price. These economists sought to describe and explain a phenomenon, but did not necessarily concern themselves with how to change it or its trajectory.
Strategic management researchers have empirically examined major management decisions such as acquisitions, alliances, and the extension of organizational boundaries with new products; however, from the literature search conducted for this study, it is apparent that they have rarely studied pricing as an example of a strategic management decision.
Management scholars have studied prestige seeking and status from many perspectives: for its functions and dysfunctions (Perrow, 1961), for its antecedents and outcomes, for its role in change, or in inertia, and at different levels of analysis including the macro or organization field or market level, and the micro, individual and small group level (Piazza & Castellucci, 2014).
Numerous higher education scholars have written studies about higher education institutions with the word “prestige” in the titles. Recent examples include Sweitzer
(2008), Sanford (2011), Fugate (2012), and Inglesias, (2014). Sweitzer (2008) asked what variables relate to the USNWR measure of organizational reputation. Sanford (2011) The Price of Prestige 8 asked whether changes in an institution’s prestige relate to its revenue diversification.
Fugate (2012) explored how liberal arts colleges communicate prestige to prospective students. Lastly, Iglesias (2014) asked about the difference in expenditure patterns between institutions that changed Carnegie classifications and those that did not.
Inglesias (2014) made the argument that his research question is important because rising expenditures drive up tuition. However, that argument would affect only the 203 institutions out of his sample of 1,215 that had changed classifications. Furthermore,
Iglesias (2014) did not report the tuition increases of either the population that changed classifications or the population that remained in the same classification over the period studied. In sum, none of these scholars asked what was on the minds of decision makers and how this affects the tuition increases that they approve.
Research Questions
As the title of this study indicates, the overarching question is whether prestige seeking might influence decisions at private nonprofit colleges and universities at the time to increase tuition. The research question is
. Can evidence demonstrate that prestige seeking is a part of decision makers’
mental maps when making tuition increase decisions?
Significance and Purpose of Study
Higher education is both a public good and, increasingly, a private good. A private good is one where the benefit of consuming a product or service accrues to the purchaser of that service. As a public good, all members of the public enjoy the benefits from higher education: it is important both to society and to national prosperity.
Universities are expected to “serve democracy by improving the literacy, knowledge, The Price of Prestige 9 tolerance, fair-mindedness and responsible” participation of its citizens and “preserve, develop and augment the general cultural values of our civilization” (Smelser, 2012, p. 3). This mission can only be achieved if the tuition that the student pays remains affordable. Also as a public good, higher education has a significant role in improving the nation’s economic position. Bok (2003) described universities as the principle source of three essential ingredients to the continued growth and prosperity of the nation: highly trained specialists, expert knowledge, and scientific advances. Human capital theory, an economic theory, speaks at the macro level of raising human productivity through investing in education, and at the individual level (or in its capacity as a private good) of a return on an investment which results from an individual’s decision to pursue and complete a program of higher education. When individuals enroll in higher education for their own increased social mobility, it is purchased as a private good (Dill, 2005). When the opportunity for social mobility through higher education is limited by its price, income inequality increases (Greenstone, Looney, Patashnik, & Yu, 2013).When higher education is not affordable or is affordable only to a few, and if social mobility and income inequality decrease, democracy and national economic welfare suffer.
The problem of annual increases in tuition at a rate greater than inflation is important because the public has spoken and said higher education is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The American higher education system has been lauded as the finest in the world (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). In the preamble to its report,
The Spellings Commission opined that the United States system of higher education has become one of its greatest success stories in terms of the number and variety of institutions, open access, and advancement of the frontiers of knowledge (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006). It also reported that, if left unaddressed, the issue of The Price of Prestige 10 affordability could cause the public to lose confidence in the system. For the last half century, higher education has consumed an increasing proportion of national resources and family incomes. Families’ incomes are tapped out, but the Nation’s need and desire for higher education is not.
To remain affordable and to continue to contribute to the success of society, universities and their administrators must scrutinize the impact of long standing strategies and behaviors such as prestige seeking. Taking the position that setting tuition is a strategic management decision, this purpose of this study is to determine whether a relationship exists between prestige-seeking strategies and pricing—whether prestige seeking might influence tuition decisions. If this researcher can show decision makers how their mindsets affect their decision making, and can initiate a change to a more strategic mindset, aware of the broader environmental impact of their decisions, it will impact the issue of rising tuition where other approaches have not.
The primary audience for this study is those academicians involved in the tuition increase decision in higher education, a group that could include senior administrators, faculty senate or senate budget subcommittee members, and members of the boards that govern universities. Higher education is a mature industry (Levine, 2001) and a highly institutionalized field (Scott, 2010). The pressure to conform to norms is strongest in organizations in mature industries. Breaking away from the accepted norms of competition within a group risks organizational legitimacy (Deephouse, 1996).
Awareness of the impact of a behavior is the first step to breaking away and changing it.
Management scholars are a second audience for this study because it extends the application of the theory of managerial cognition to a new type of strategic decision. It also illustrates the relationship between cognitive strategic groups and legitimacy groups. The Price of Prestige 11 Lastly, for management scholars, this study also extends a research method, content analysis, to documents self-published on organization websites, and to a diversity of types of documents, namely press releases, published speeches and published minutes of faculty senate, committee, and board of trustees meetings. In the concluding chapter of this study, the researcher discusses some consequences of the study’s findings and how decision makers can make use of them.
Scope and Limitations
Three classes of institution comprise the American higher education system: public nonprofit organizations, private nonprofit organizations and private for-profit organizations. The labels refer to the type of control of the institution. Each class can be further broken down by highest degree offered. For example, community colleges, part of the class of public nonprofit organizations, are sometimes referred to as 2-year colleges because typically the highest degree they can award is an Associate’s degree. Liberal arts colleges are often 4-year colleges, granting bachelor’s degrees, and research universities can be public nonprofit or private nonprofit organizations, granting professional and research terminal degrees. Some for-profit universities also confer terminal degrees.
According to the 2011 edition of the Digest of Education Statistics (Snyder & Dillow,
2012), in the fall of 2009, there were 1,493 public nonprofit institutions, 1,682 private nonprofit organizations (both independent and religiously affiliated), and 1,181 private for-profit institutions. This study focuses on undergraduate tuition at private nonprofit organizations. Almost all private nonprofit colleges and universities in the US offer 4- year degrees or higher.
The primary reason why public universities are excluded from the scope of this research is because many attribute much of the rate of increase in tuition for public The Price of Prestige 12 universities, especially in the most recent decade, to a decline in the amount of per student funding received from the state. In fact, the Delta cost project (Desrochers &
Wellman, 2011) shows that such funding, on a per student basis, fell between 2001 and
2004, but rose between 2004 and 2008. The purpose of this study is not to address public policy issues such as the right amount of funding of higher education by a state or by the federal government. Rather this study focuses on understanding whether the cognition of senior administrators, boards of governors, and faculty involved in the tuition increase decision affects that decision. Some of the research (e.g., Toma, 2008) shows that public universities behave in a fashion similar (and equally egregious) to private nonprofit universities, seeking prestige or, “lacking other clear mission,” pursuing “a vague commitment to excellence” (Bok, 2003, p. 5), increasing tuition more rapidly than the general rate of inflation and, charging higher fees to out-of-state students, sometimes higher than the average tuition changed by comparable private nonprofit institutions in the same state. For example, in 2011–2012, stateflagship universities in Michigan, Maine, and Massachusetts, charged out of state students more in tuition than the average private, nonprofit, 4-year universities in their states (Ma & Baum, 2012). At other public flagship universities, professional schools have “broken away” from their state university systems and privatized to charge higher tuitions, with the intent of associating themselves with a more prestigious peer group. This study gathered data only from private nonprofit universities. The argument and the role of cognition can be clearly identified, and the alternate argument about the level of state funding does not pertain. A final reason for excluding public universities from the scope of the study is that the decision making process might not be in the hands of university administrators, but, as in the case of the
State University System of Florida, might be determined by legislators. The Price of Prestige 13 Second, this study focuses on the “sticker” price—the published price, rather than the price that students pay after institutional “scholarships” or discounts. The original justification for discounting was that it enabled access to higher education for students from lower income families. Today universities extend discounts to highly qualified traditional students as well as to needy traditional students. Some researchers have characterized tuition discounting as a (secretive) form of price discrimination (e.g.,
Lawson & Zerkle, 2006; Rose & Sorensen, 1992; Tiffany & Ankrom, 1998). Other social scientists (e.g., Mause, 2009) believe that the practice has become excessively and socially wasteful. The published price is the only information that prospective students have available to compare colleges at the time they are selecting where to apply and it is the variable upon which normative beliefs that higher priced colleges are more prestigious is based; therefore, in this study, tuition and sticker price are synonymous.
Net tuition or the price paid on average by the student has also risen in excess of the rate of inflation although by a smaller percentage than tuition or published price. Third, institutional behavior is the primary focus of this study because this is the locus where change must originate for the problem to be effectively addressed.
Dissertation Organization
In the study, the researcher explores whether prestige-seeking influences increases in tuition. This first chapter set the stage by delineating the problem, defining the research question, and discussing the potential significance of the study to multiple audiences.
In Chapter 2, a review of the scholarly literature, the researcher begins with explanations of the economics of pricing and the economics of nonprofit organizations.
This is followed by a review of other primarily economic explanations of the rising tuition phenomenon. In the next section, the researcher addresses similarities and The Price of Prestige 14 differences between the concepts of prestige, reputation, legitimacy, and status.
Legitimacy provides the segue into the first of two management theories that frame and explain how prestige seeking might affect strategic decision making. The first theoretical lens, institutional theory, identifies three forces—normative, regulatory, and mimetic— that tend to make institutions alike. The second theoretical lens, managerial cognition, shows how managers use simplified mental maps in decision making, comparing their organizations to others within their cognitive strategic groups, and imitating the strategies of the reputational leader of the group, which also makes the focal organization more like others in the same group. In the final section of this chapter, the researcher reviews the findings from a number of empirical studies in higher education that relate to the theoretical propositions, extracting a description of prestige-seeking strategies and key words associated with them.
In Chapter 3, the researcher discusses the methodology for the study, content analysis, and how it was selected. Data for the study include documents published and retrieved from the websites of a number of private nonprofit universities. The content analysis employs the keywords associated with prestige seeking strategies identified through the literature review. The chapter details the selection of materials and the extraction and coding of data from those materials. A panel comprised of practitioners and an academic scholar provided additional guidance and suggestions on the methodology and findings, complementing the research process expertise of the study advisory committee.
In Chapter 4, the researcher describes, synthesizes, and discusses the findings from the content analysis. In Chapter 5, the researcher discusses the findings and The Price of Prestige 15 implications for scholars and practitioners and limitations of the studies before making concluding remarks. The Price of Prestige 16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the researcher reviews the scholarly literature that pertains to the overarching question for this study:
. Might prestige seeking influence decisions at private nonprofit colleges and
universities at the time to increase tuition?
The researcher also asks the specific research question:
. Can evidence demonstrate that prestige seeking is a part of decision makers’
mental maps when making tuition increase decisions?
The chapter has two purposes. The purpose of the review of the theoretical literature is to develop research propositions. The second purpose is to review the literature pertaining to the application of these propositions in the field of higher education.
This study about how managers do or should set prices crosses disciplines. Both economic and management theories inform this study’s research questions. In the first section of this chapter, the researcher discusses the economics of pricing, the economics of nonprofit organizations, and how pricing in nonprofit organizations might be different from pricing in their for-profit counterparts. The economics of higher education, a subset of nonprofit organizations, is a special branch of economics (Jenny, 1968). Researchers have conducted both theoretical and empirical analyses to attempt to explain the price increases in higher education.
Economic and management theory both suggest that the pursuit of prestige by nonprofit organizations such as higher education organizations is a significant motivator of the behavior of decision makers in private, nonprofit, higher education organizations.
Academicians have often examined the field of higher education through the lens of The Price of Prestige 17 institutional theory (e.g., Bastedo & Bowman, 2011; Toma, 2008). In contrast to strategic management theories such as resource theory, the purpose of which is to explain why some organizations outperform others (Barney, 2002) or how organizations should differentiate themselves (Porter, 1985), institutional theory addresses what makes organizations in a particular field similar (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In the second section of this chapter, the researcher reviews the theoretical literature concerning institutional theory and managerial cognition (Huff, 1990), and shows how conceptually they jointly influence the decision making context of a price increase.
Turning from theoretical framework to empirical evidence in the scholarly literature, a number of studies address the pursuit of greater legitimacy and prestige among higher education organizations. In the third section of the chapter, the researcher describes some of the empirical literature in which researchers have applied economic, institutional, and managerial cognition theories specifically in higher education. A summary of this literature provides the framework for the content analysis.
The Economics of Pricing
Neoclassical Economic Theory
Referred to as general equilibrium models, neoclassical theories of economics suggest that prices are set by the invisible hand of the market to bring supply and demand into balance. The assumption is made that products are homogenous and that buyers have enough knowledge about them to be able to establish the utility or value of the product to the buyer. At the market-clearing price, organizations maximize their profit or surplus over costs and individuals maximize their utility (Arrow & Hahn, 1971). If demand increases, prices will rise and an incentive will be created for supply to increase, which will bring prices back to the equilibrium point. Graphically, with price being represented The Price of Prestige 18 on the vertical axis and volume on the horizontal, the demand curve slopes upwards to the right and the supply curve slopes downwards. Equilibrium is at the intersection of the two curves (Figure 1).
Few markets exemplify the principle of the markets setting the price at which the transaction takes place. The stock exchange is a good example of a market that exemplifies the principle. In practice, products and services are not the same, and consumers often do not have enough information to be able to determine the utility or value of a product or service. Decision makers in organizations set prices based on, among other things, how they think that consumers assess the utility of the item that they are considering purchasing from the decision maker’s organization. Shapiro (1968) found a gap in the literature about management decision making with respect to price, describing the area as “of little theoretical understanding and even less operating precision” and where “business thinking is “fuzzy” and “riddled with black magic”
(p. 14). Reviewing the extant marketing and economics literature on the psychology of pricing, Shapiro (1968) focused on price as an indicator of quality. Although pricing as a strategic decision continues to be neglected as topic of study by management theorists, the economics and marketing literature has advanced. In the next sections, the researcher elaborates on price as an indicator of quality and the substitution or organizational reputation or status as an indicator of quality where product or service quality is unknown prior to the consumer purchasing it.
Price as an Indicator of Quality
Leavitt (1954) was the first to establish that consumers use price as an indicator or signal of quality. Shapiro (1968) reported the results of Leavitt (1954) and other researchers that showed that the perception of higher quality, as signaled by higher price The Price of Prestige 19 caused demand for a product to increase. In other words, the slope of the demand curve reversed (Figure 1). Upwards sloping demand curves, where volume increases with price, occur where product quality and utility are difficult to judge because of, for example, technical complexity or the difficulty in judging the future performance of the product or service by observable current aspects of it. Economists apply the label “experience good” to products or services whose future performance is difficult to assess before buying it.
Figure 1. Traditional demand curve and upward sloping demand curve.
Higher education economists such as McPherson and Winston (1993) reasoned that higher education is an example of an “experience good.” Its value is dependent upon the student graduating. Following the approach of human capital theory, the return on an investment in education can only be completely known at the end of a working lifetime, a long time after its actual “purchase.” The Price of Prestige 20 In some situations, the use of price as a signal of quality might be rationalized as a function of information asymmetry between the buyer (lacking information) and the seller (not disclosing information). The cognitive miser argument is one theoretical explanation about why consumers might have imperfect information. The cognitive miser is like a management satisficer (Simon, 1997). The theorist argues that consumers as cognitive misers rely on heuristics and other short cuts to save mental time and energy rather than gathering complete information about all choices and options prior to a purchase decision. In particular, consumers as cognitive misers use price as a proxy for quality. Miller (1975) noted that consumer preference for certain status goods is not caused merely by the use of price as a guide to quality, but also because consumers frequently lack the information necessary to assess such complex goods adequately.
Another group of scholars further developed theories about this information asymmetry between the seller and the buyer, summarized by Rao (2005). Where product quality is unobservable, consumers will infer quality from a high price, reasoning that it is in the supplier’s self-interest to offer only high quality products. Thus, according to Shiv,
Carmon, and Ariely (2005), price signals are often a nonconscious influence on consumer expectations about product quality.
Price, Quality, and Status
A further consequence in the economic theory of imperfect information for experience goods is that consumers use a firm’s reputation for the quality of its goods in the past as an indicator of that quality in the future (Shapiro, 1983). Having invested to earn a reputation for high quality goods, a seller can command and maintain a premium for his products. In the sociological theory of markets, status is a parallel construct to reputation, also conditioned on imperfect information. Status is defined as “the perceived The Price of Prestige 21 quality of a producer’s products in relation to the perceived quality of that producer’s competitors’ products” (Podolny, 1993, p. 830). Podolny (1993) further stated,
If an actor is unable or unwilling to bear the search costs of investigating all the products in a market, then the regard of others for a given producer is a strong indicator of the quality of that producers output. (p. 831)
Quality and status are not synonymous; however. In the absence of objective standards for quality, such as in higher education, the linkage is tighter. The greater the uncertainty about quality, the more market participants will rely on producer status
(Piazza & Castelucci, 2014). For an organization, a higher status increases what people are willing to pay and lowers the risk that a good is below a given quality threshold.
In summary, because higher education is an experience good, and one for which the buyer has imperfect information, the theorist suggests that, absent objective standards of quality, higher status benefits organizations in terms of perceived higher quality for which they can charge higher prices. In the next section, the researcher takes up a different economic theory and directly addresses why higher education organizations seek to enhance their status or prestige.
The Economics of Nonprofit Organizations
In the United States, higher education institutions can be organized as for-profit or nonprofit organizations. The nonprofit sector can be further subdivided between private nonprofits and public nonprofits. Public nonprofit universities are supported, to a varying extent, directly by taxpayer funds. The economic drivers for private nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit universities, are different from those of for-profit organizations and universities.
This section discusses economic theories that differentiate the behavior of nonprofit organizations from those of for-profit organizations as well as some of the The Price of Prestige 22 unique economic theories explaining higher education organization behavior. For-profit organizations have owners who expect the organization to maximize shareholder wealth whereas the nonprofit organizations have no owners per se. Simon (1997) saw that nonprofit organizations are likely to differ in behavior from for-profit organization because they would be able to pursue their objectives without compromise to the profit objective.
The Nondistribution Constraint
The most essential and distinguishing characteristic of nonprofit organizations is the nondistribution constraint, a structural feature of nonprofits (Hansmann, 1980;
Valentinov, 2008). The nondistribution constraint states that a nonprofit organizations is prohibited from distributing earnings to those who control it. Although it does not prohibit a nonprofit organization from earning a profit, the nondistribution constraint prohibits the distribution of residual earnings. In effect, any surpluses generated must be ploughed back into future services that further the organization’s mission. The nondistribution constraint affects nonprofit organizations’ roles and behavior. The primary importance of the nondistribution constraint is that it acts as an incentive to check opportunistic behavior by managers because they cannot directly distribute profits to themselves. Managers in nonprofit organizations do not have an incentive to cut corners on quality to lower costs, again because they cannot distribute any resulting profits to themselves (Hansmann, 1980; Ortmann, 1996).
Hansmann (1980) originated the term, contract failure theory, of the nonprofit enterprise, based on work by Nelson and Kashshinsky. Contract failure theory is also known, more positively, as trustworthiness theory (Valentinov, 2008). Malani, Philipson, and David (2003) used a similar term, noncontractible quality. Contract failure or The Price of Prestige 23 trustworthiness theory says that, in some situations, consumers are unable to evaluate accurately the quality of a service prior to its purchase or consumption; therefore, they are unable to “contract” for its quality. In other words, the quality of the purchase is nonverifiable; therefore, purchasers have no mechanism by which to police producers regarding product quality. Buyers must trust sellers not to take advantage of them (Ben-
Ner, 2002). In such circumstances where consumers are unable to judge or contract for product quality before the purchase, the nondistribution constraint leads customers to prefer nonprofit organizations as service providers because nonprofit organizations appear more trustworthy and have a lesser incentive to cut costs, lowering quality
(Glaeser & Shleifer, 2001). This is especially the case when consumers care a great deal about the (nonverifiable) quality of what they are purchasing, as is the case with higher education (Ortmann, 1996). Therefore, the theorist suggests that buyers will prefer nonprofit universities, associating those universities with higher quality. In addition, the theory encourages nonprofit universities to enhance their reputation and status as a proxy for higher quality and to charge higher prices that signal higher quality.
Nonprofit Organization Objectives
If contract failure or trustworthiness theory and the nondistribution constraint explain the demand side, or why consumers seek to buy from nonprofit organizations, the next group of theories examines the supply, or organization behavior side. If the objective of for-profit organizations is to maximize profits for their shareholders, the first question that must be answered is “What do nonprofit organizations maximize?” (Hansmann,
1987).
Theorists have proposed three maximands for nonprofit organizations: revenue
(Schiff & Weisbrod, 1991), quality, or stakeholder utility (Valentinov, 2008). Using data The Price of Prestige 24 from the tax returns of nonprofit organizations in the social welfare services sector, Schiff and Weisbrod (1991) confirmed the hypothesis by James (1983) that nonprofit organizations maximize revenues by conducting what they termed distasteful commercial activities, or activities that stakeholders derive no satisfaction from, to generate surpluses that can subsidize other activities that the same stakeholder perceive to be of higher value. Thus, maximizing revenue through cross subsidization also implies utility maximization. Young, Jung, and Aranson (2010) studied organizations that chose higher prices and revenue maximization for activities in which the market would bear a higher price, and lower prices for activities that would result in mission maximization, suggesting that revenue maximizing is not the objective in and of itself, but merely a means to the end of utility maximizing. James (1983) cited the example of higher education, where undergraduate education and adult and graduate professional education, both of which generate surpluses relative to their costs, are undertaken to maximize the revenue that can be reinvested in research, an activity that has higher value for one class of stakeholders, the faculty. The theory of utility maximization seems to have a broader fit than the theory of revenue maximization.
This comparison begs the question of “What makes up the utility function of nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit colleges and universities?” In economic terms, the utility function represents an organization’s objectives. Stakeholders derive value (or utility to economists) from the objectives and those objectives guide the organization’s behavior and decision making. According to James (1990), several empirical studies of universities, including Jencks and Reisman (1968), Breneman
(1970), Moyer and Kretlow (1978) and Garvin (1980), have confirmed that behaviors and decisions about resource allocation are consistent with prestige maximization as the The Price of Prestige 25 major goal of universities. The adoption of prestige maximization as the university objective aggregates from personal prestige seeking by individual faculty members who seek recognition from scholarly peers, to academic departments, and to the university generally (Garvin, 1980).
When all of these economic forces of nonprofit price and prestige are considered together, the following theoretical proposition emerges as part of a framework within which to which to investigate and evaluate the primary research question.
. Proposition 1: Private nonprofit higher education institutions seek to
maximize their prestige, which signals higher quality and enables them to
increase revenue.
Other Arguments About the Unique Economics of Higher Education
Proposition 1 provides one economic explanation of a university’s behavior and the argument for increasing tuition, rather than, for example, numbers of students educated. Other streams of literature that explain ever-rising tuition in higher education include (a) the revenue theory of costs by Bowen (1980), (b) the cost disease theory of
Baumol and Bowen (1966), and (c) a number of a-theoretical econometric models or case studies such as St. John (1992). In this section, the researcher discusses first, the revenue theory of costs, and second, the cost disease theory.
Bowen (1980) proposed the theory, known as the revenue theory of costs, that costs rise because revenue is available to be spent and that revenue is the only constraint on costs. The revenue theory of cost acknowledges colleges as maximizers of excellence, prestige, and quality (Archibald & Feldman, 2008), while noting that, under most economic scenarios, revenue maximization would be achieved from both higher quantities of students and higher prices. What invalidates the theory of revenue The Price of Prestige 26 maximizing is that universities choose higher prices, but choose not to raise the number of students they enroll as first-time, full-time undergraduates. Universities appear to be aware in their decision making that higher prices signal higher quality, but that higher quantities would reduce selectivity and would signal lower quality.
The theory of Baumol and Bowen (1966) has been nicknamed the cost disease theory. The theory identifies that some environments are less hospitable to technological progress and so they do not yield up productivity improvements easily (Clotfelter, 1996).
However to compete for workers with industries that increase productivity, they must give similarly sized wage and salary increases to their workers. Personal service industries, including education specifically, were identified as examples in which the cost disease might be prevalent. Archibald and Feldman (2008) added that the cost disease that affects higher education was magnified because of its intensive use of highly educated labor. The wages of educated workers such as college professors increase faster than wages for other workers and the increases could not be offset by productivity improvements like increases in class size because large class sizes signal lowering quality. The evidence gathered by Archibald and Feldman (2008) more strongly supports the cost disease theory than the revenue theory; however, in providing an economy-wide justification for cost increases and, therefore, for tuition increases, it ignores the crucial choice made by administrators: to eschew productivity improvements that might signal lower quality. Clotfelter (1996) described other mechanisms driving expenditure growth: a mounting emphasis on research, asymmetric incentives where cuts engender significant political costs, but approving increasing expenditures result in reciprocal support, and lastly, inertia, mechanisms that management theory can address. The Price of Prestige 27 In contrast to Archibald and Feldman’s (2008) view and their justification of cost and tuition increases in the light of broad macroeconomic trends, Winston (1999) and
Winston (2000) were among several publications from the Williams Project on the
Economics of Higher Education who focused specifically on the “awkward economics” of higher education (Winston, 1999). Winston (1999) picked out some features of higher education economics that would distinguish its organizational economic behavior from other industries: first, the nondistribution constraint and the selection of an organizational objective other than profit and, second, information asymmetry between prospective students and target institutions. Winston (2003) noted that, in addition to the industry- distinguishing organizational objective of prestige, representing quality or excellence, the higher education industry has a hierarchical structure dependent on the size of an organization’s endowment (from donative resources) that is available to support a tuition discount. A university’s position relative to another in the hierarchy is what is critical for access to student quality. Information asymmetry is not unique to the higher education industry, but the hierarchical structure of the education industry might differentiate it from others such as life insurance where information asymmetry exists. An organization’s objective is not to maintain its status in the hierarchy, but to improve it. It can only do this by displacing another organization above it in the hierarchy.
Prestige, Status, Reputation, Legitimacy, and Quality
In the preceding discussion of economic theory, the researcher discussed prestige as the objective of nonprofit organizations and prestige, status, and reputation as emblematic of organization quality. A fifth term, legitimacy, is conceptually similar in management theory. In this section, the researcher discusses definitions of these terms, The Price of Prestige 28 identifying how they are used, their antecedents and outcomes, and where third parties influence them.
Prestige, reputation, and image are synonyms (Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997).
In fact, the word prestige is used in some scholars’ definitions of reputation and status
(Huberman, Loch, & Önçüler, 2004; Jensen & Roy, 2008). Together with legitimacy, prestige and reputation are key concepts in strategic management theories such as institutional theory, and the resource view (Bitektine, 2011; Deephouse & Carter, 2005).
Addressing reputation first, in management theory, several definitions and uses of the term can be found. Reputation can refer to past actions of an organization such as its past quality performance (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999; Washington & Zajac, 2005). Other definitions of reputation refer to expectations of behavior in the future from past demonstrations (Podolny, 2005) or the perceived ability of the organization to create value for its stakeholders (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005). Economists conceptualize organizational reputation similarly to Rindova et al. (2005), as an asset, albeit an intangible asset or resource, where investment today will yield benefit in the future (Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen, 2010; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Reputation is important in situations where information is incomplete (Weigelt & Camerer, 1988) or asymmetric (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). The strategic management literature discusses reputation as a capability and a source of competitive advantage (Basdeo, Smith, Grimm,
Rindova, & Derfus, 2006). Some studies have examined the effect of reputation on performance (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999; Roberts & Dowling, 2002), while others have shown that favorable reputations allow organizations to increase prices (Basdeo et al.,
2006). Rindova et al. (2005) concurred with findings about the impact of a favorable reputation and its outcome on price. They also found that perceptions of the quality of an The Price of Prestige 29 organization’s products and of its prominence are antecedents to reputation.
Organizations make choices to allocate resources to product quality, signaling reputation.
Organizations cannot influence prominence as easily: prominence is bestowed by influential intermediaries in a field and by high-status actors. Reputation is generally considered socially constructed and subjective (Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2011; Rao, 1994), established by outsiders to the organization, and dependent on judgments about an organization’s past or expected future behavior (Bitektine, 2011). Examples of intermediaries and outsiders whose judgments affect reputation include organizations that publish rankings, such as Business Week and USNWR. Status, prestige, and legitimacy have overlapping conceptualizations.
Status and reputation are often not clearly distinguished as concepts. For example, Fombrun and Shanley (1990) discussed reputation as “reputational status”
(p. 233). Elsbach and Kramer (1996) used status and reputation interchangeably in their analysis of business school responses to the publication of rankings by Business Week, which began in 1988. Podolny (1993) defined status as the quality of an organization’s products relative to competitors. The concept of status in Sauder, Lynn, and Podolny
(2012), like reputation, is a signal of quality and, similar to reputation, can be determined by external arbiters like licensing agencies or by producers of rankings information such as USNWR. Theorists such as Washington and Zajac (2005) would prefer that, consistent with its economics-driven interpretation, the word reputation be associated with definitions that reference product quality. Washington and Zajac (2005) focused on the sociological concept of status in management literature that referred, in the Weberian sense, to an “unearned ascription of social rank” (p. 282) and the reward of social esteem.
Differences in status, therefore, reflect social characteristics, not product quality The Price of Prestige 30 characteristics or performance. These authors hypothesize that status increases through association with other higher status organizations. Summing up, in common with reputation, high status firms can charge more for their products, and external arbiters such as periodicals rankings have an effect on status, albeit an effect the tends to rigidify a social hierarachy (Sauder et al., 2012). Differentiating, status is more of a hierarchical concept than reputation. A determinant unique to the status of a focal organization is the status of other organizations with which it affiliates.
Then next term, legitimacy, is also a sociological concept (Washington & Zajac,
2005) and it is also a judgment by outsiders, of the organization’s social fitness (Oliver,
1991) or the conformity of the organization’s practices to industry norms (Bitektine,
2011). Theorists have not described a role for product or organizational quality in judgments about legitimacy. Legitimacy differs from status in that it is usually a binary concept, whereas status is defined as a relative standing or favorableness (Deephouse &
Carter, 2005). An evaluator will judge an organization to have legitimacy or to not have legitimacy. Status relates to an organization’s position in a hierarchy or the position of the group that it belongs to in that hierarchy. Legitimacy is a term used by institutional theorists and strategists (Suchman, 1995), but is the preferred term used by institutional theorists to describe an organization’s social acceptance (Deephouse & Carter, 2005).
According to institutional theory, conforming to regulative, normative, or cognitive forcesand becoming more like other organizations in a field leads to acceptance of the organization. Survival or persistence is an outcome for an organization of achieving legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). Another outcome is that it might improve an organization’s ability to acquire resources. Both Suchman (1995) and Bitektine (2011) described multiple types of legitimacy, according to the identity of the evaluator and the audience The Price of Prestige 31 for the evaluation, which makes it a much more complex concept than reputation or status. Evaluators, such as periodicals that publish rankings of universities, establish whether organizations conform to certain standards; these evaluators are looked to as a powerful authority in establishing legitimacy and legitimacy groups (Kim, 2013). Thus, legitimacy has in common with reputation and status that rankings published by periodicals have a more influential role than other evaluators have. Legitimacy is more closely tied to management theory than economic theory.
Of the four concepts, the last term, prestige, is the term used by economists, but is least frequently used or studied by management scholars. In management theory, the definitions of both reputation and status incorporate the word prestige, but the definitions neitherspecify who evaluates prestige, nor do they share a common measure (such as quality) by which prestige is or should be evaluated.
Reputation: “The prestige accorded firms on the basis of how they have performed particular activities in the past” (Jensen & Roy, 2008: 497)
Status: “Rank-ordered relationship among people associated with prestige and deference behavior” (Huberman et al., 2004, p. 103)
“Prestige accorded firms because of the hierarchical positions they occupy in a social structure” (Jensen & Roy, 2008, p. 496). (Bitektine, 2011, p. 161)
Bitektine (2011) shared with Volkwein and Sweitzer (2006) the interchangeability of prestige, reputation, and status. By contrast, in the conceptualization of Perrow (1961), a conceptualization closer to the economists’ conceptualization, prestige is a favorable image, sometimes judged by product qualities, but also assessed by extrinsic and indirect referents that can be judged, while intrinsic ones cannot. Prestige can also be built using institutional advertising. This conceptualization returns to the antecedent of a lack of information (or lack of access to information) that necessitates certain stakeholders using The Price of Prestige 32 others’ evaluations of an organization and their assessment of its prestige. In Volkwein and Sweitzer (2006), a study of prestige and reputation among college and universities, quality is measured via publicly available, and easily quantifiable, Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT) scores as a proxy for quality of inputs, so (input) quality is an antecedent of prestige. These authors admonish readers that there is more to educational quality than these conveniently available measures of inputs. In management literature, prestige is cospecified as status or reputation and can be expected to share properties such as having greater meaning in the context of comparison to another organization. Prestige, like status or reputation is assessed by easily available external referent data that is taken up by external arbiters such as periodicals-affiliated publishers of rankings, which increases the rigidity of a social hierarchy. Lastly, like reputation and status, prestige bears an intrinsic, but unspecifiable relation to product quality.
Is there a reason why economists say that nonprofit organizations are prestige seeking rather than reputation-seeking, or that sociologists say that they are status seeking, or legitimacy-seeking? Prestige, reputation, and status are hierarchical; legitimacy generally is not. All are about external stakeholder perceptions of a focal organization and acknowledge a role for third party organizations in establishing or influencing those perceptions. Institutional theory and strategic management theory use the constructs in different ways. In institutional theory, legitimacy is a desired state for organizations that can lead to enhanced access to resources. In strategic management, reputation or status can be a resource or a capability leading to superior performance. In the next section of this literature review, the researcher explores, through institutional theory and management cognition, how legitimacy seeking (or prestige or status or The Price of Prestige 33 reputation seeking) exerts an influence on an organization’s decision making environment and, ultimately, can affect management decisions about raising tuition.
Theoretical Lenses
Institutional theory is one lens through which to understand why all institutions in a field pursue a similar strategy. The cognitive school of strategy (Mintzberg & Lampel,
1999) and managerial cognition provide an additional lens through which to view decision maker mindsets and strategic decisions. Together these theories will show that strategic decision making takes place at the confluence of pressures from similarly functioning constructs with different names: (a) legitimacy groups in institutional theory and their counterpart, strategic cognitive groups, constrain the search for different solutions and differentiation; (b) typical organizational responses where goals and objectives are unclear are to imitate a leader (cognitive) or mimic another organization
(institutional theory); (c) change is harder to conceive or implement because of normative forces (institutional theory) or cognitive inertia, the difficulty of changing mental models.
Institutional Theory and Isomorphism
Pfeffer and Fong (2004) wrote,
As others have noted, the problem at the moment is that business schools are basically a) all doing about the same thing and b) all doing about the same thing as many of their competitors—attempting, although sometimes failing, to provide relevant education and research. (p. 24)
Scott (1987) attributed the origination of institutional theory to Selznick.
According to Scott, in a study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Selznick observed the somewhat unconscious adoption and institutionalization of a pattern of intrinsic values, of a “form of group idealism” (p. 494), that is less readily expendable than might be found in a purely technical conception of an organization. Thus, a foundational concept of The Price of Prestige 34 institutional theory, more clearly stated by Meyer and Rowan (1977), is that an organization is a social order dependent on a shared social reality that results from social interactions. Institutional theory has three levels of analysis: the individual, the organization, and the interorganizational environment or institutional field (Oliver, 1997).
At the individual level, Tolbert and Zucker (1996) presented and contrasted two hypothetical actors as ends of a spectrum of decision-making processes and behaviors: the economic “rational actor” whose behavior reflects the constant cost benefit calculations needed to achieve utility maximization, and the sociologically
“oversocialized” actor who accepts and follows “social norms unquestioningly” (p. 176).
At the organizational level, the theorist asserts that the social environment influences the development of formal structures in organizations, and that social processes or obligations become like rules governing the organization. Such social influences are stronger than market forces. Meyer and Scott (1983) introduced the idea that organizations must conform to the rules and norms of their environment to receive legitimacy. Legitimacy seeking becomes the imperative of organizations (Martinez &
Dacin, 1999) in contrast to the economic profit-maximizing imperative. Similarly, for
Heugens and Lander (2009), (neo) institutionalists treat social acceptance seeking as a more dominant driver of organizational behavior than economic value maximization.
Where performance is not judged by efficiency, which is the case for nonprofit organizations, organizations will maximize conformity (Barman, 2002).
Contemporaneously with Meyer and Scott (1983), a second major proposition of institution theory was put forward by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) seeking to explain not why organizations differ in form, practice and performance, but rather, why such homogeneity exists in an institutional field. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) theorized that, The Price of Prestige 35 in the process of striving for legitimacy, organizations adapt to an institutional environment that values and rewards conformity, becoming more alike through a process that DiMaggio and Powell (1983) called isomorphism. Isomorphic change, therefore, is the process whereby organizations conforming to external pressures, becoming more alike. Three mechanisms or forces drive isomorphic change: (a) coercive mechanisms such as regulation; (b) normative mechanisms as manifested, for example, by the strong influence of professional values, and (c) mimetic mechanisms by which a focal organization decides to follow the strategies and actions of others.
In institutional theory, legitimacy is an important concept because it is the objective of organizations in an institutional field. Organizations with more ambiguous goals are more dependent on legitimacy. Actors seek legitimacy because it enhances organizational persistence or longevity. Legitimacy is a state achieved through the process of conformity or isomorphism, and has antecedents and consequences.
Legitimacy is defined as social and economic fitness, cultural conformity (Suchman,
1995) or social acceptance resulting from conformity to regulative, normative, or cognitive norms and expectations (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). DiMaggio and Powell
(1983) regard vying, or striving, for legitimacy as a contest. Conformity is demonstrated through the adoption of structures, procedures and strategy, among other things
(Deephouse, 1996). Strategic isomorphism specifically is the case in which an organization’s strategies resemble the conventional normal strategies in the industry
(Deephouse, 1996). Antecedents of legitimacy shared with reputation include size, charitable giving, strategic alliances, and regulatory compliance (Deephouse & Carter,
2005). Outcomes of legitimacy might include better access to resources. Financial performance might be an antecedent (Deephouse & Carter, 2005) and an outcome. The Price of Prestige 36 Seeking legitimacy does not always result in positive outcomes. Barreto and Baden-
Fuller (2006) documented the negative outcomes of banks establishing branches in overbanked locations with insufficient income in the geographical area to support a viable level of deposits for all the banks establishing branches in that location. Lastly, and in line with the social versus rational argument, the outcome of isomorphism might be greater symbolic performance than substantive performance (Heugens & Lander, 2007).
Organizations that seek to enhance their legitimacy through symbolic actions, following a normative rationality with the goal of social acceptance rather than an economic rationality with a goal of profit, pay a price in loss of efficiency (Oliver, 1991).
Observing that greater ambiguity of organizational goals increases the importance to survival of legitimacy, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) extended the theoretical understanding of how isomorphic change occurs by identifying three forces, processes, or mechanisms of adaptation to a socially accepted form: coercive, normative, and mimitic.
The next three paragraphs discuss each of these discretely and sequentially although
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) noted that, while analytically distinct, the forces might be harder to unpack empirically. Understanding these processes is central to understanding how decision makers and organizations in a field adopt similar approaches, become more like one another, and become more resistant to differentiating, innovative change.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) describe coercive change as being imposed by an outside agent such as a regulator or accreditor, through political influence or through cultural expectations from the society in which an organization is situated. Coercive isomorphism legitimates through sanctioning or approval (Scott, 1987). Government and accrediting body regulation are a primary example of a coercive mechanism (Kondra &
Hinings, 1998). Heugens and Lander (2007) distinguished coercion because of cultural The Price of Prestige 37 expectations that were established by the legal and regulatory system from the dependence of a focal organization on another that controls resources. An example of the latter, Covaleski and Dirsmith (1988) studied a university budget process and the use of power by an external actor, the state government, to control access to and the distribution of resources. Perrow (1961) determined that organizations would seek prestige to escape from such a resource dependency. Mizruchi and Fein (1999) found that coercive force, and especially use of power, is the least studied of the isomorphic forces. From their review of empirical studies of isomorphic adaptation, Mizruchi and Fein (1999) also found that researchers have had difficulty operationalizing the concept of coercive forces and distinguishing them from normative processes. In many situations, more than one force or mechanism could provide a plausible explanation of change. For example, a coercive process such as benchmarking and a normative force such as the advice of valued management consultants support the decision to mimic a more prestigious or successful organization (Hanson, 2001). Decision makers and organizations would likely find it expedient to conform to coercive pressures (Scott, 2005).
Normative adaption is the second process of isomorphic adaptation proposed by
DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Normative isomorphism is associated with professionalization where by members of an occupation strive to define the conditions of their work. One contributor to normative adaptation is the process by which members of a profession receive similar training and education, which socializes them to similar world views of appropriate organizational behavior (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999).
Professional meetings and associations promote a normative adaptation. DiMaggio and
Powell (1983) identified universities as a field in which normative forces would be strong. They described the earning of academic credentials as a socialization process and The Price of Prestige 38 hypothesized that the resulting common professional values among organizational leaders who have similar academic credentials would also lead to a focal organization becoming more like others in its field. Like-professionals could control the methods of work and the acceptance of changes in structure and process. Heugens and Lander (2009) updated the concept of normative adaption to include networks of professionals that enable the diffusion of new models or practices. Summarizing empirical work, both Mizruchi and
Fein (1999) and Heugens and Lander (2009) found fewer studies that had examined normative adaptation than mimetic or coercive forces.
Thirdly, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) proposed mimicry as a strategy for dealing with uncertainty. Mimicry or mimetic adaptation is the name for the process by which one organizational models itself upon another. For Kraatz and Zajac (1996), one way that uncertainty could manifest itself is as by the lack of clear performance criteria and the ability to prove fitness objectively to outsiders. In such a field, where fitness is not easily objectively proved, organizations would likely seek to mimic the most prestigious organization in the field or one that is more successful in the public eye (Hanson, 2001;
Ordanini, Rubera, & DiFillippi, 2008). For example, Haveman (1993), studying the entry of California Savings and Loan organizations into new business areas such as real estate services, found that smaller or less profitable firms mimicked the actions of larger and more profitable ones. Refining the theory about the selection of organizations to mimic, and including uncertainty and outcomes salience as factors in the choice by decision makers, Haunschild and Miner (1997) would likely label the California Savings and
Loans example as either trait mimicry or outcomes mimicry. Traits refer to an organization’s characteristics such as its size. Outcomes refer to the superior performance and the profitability of the organizations followed in the cited example. Outcomes The Price of Prestige 39 mimicry occurs when the outcome has a strong salience to the focal organization.
Frequency mimicry occurs when the focal organizational copies the most widespread behavior, which would be observed most often in conditions of higher uncertainty.
Barreto and Baden-Fuller (2006) contended that, in the pursuit of legitimacy, focal organizations fail to distinguish between good decisions and bad decisions of the organization or group of organizations being mimicked. Several authors have noted that imitation might not achieve results if the focal organization does not have the resources; superficially implements; fails to understand the complexity of the strategy, process, or structure being imitated (Lieberman & Asaba, 2006); or does not receive greater legitimacy from the key legitimacy providers, the media or regulators (Deephouse, 1996).
Where the media or regulators have a strong influence on legitimacy, organizations in a field might break into smaller groups depending on legitimating characteristics such as ownership structure (Barreto & Baden-Fuller, 2006; Deephouse, 1996; Kim, 2013). A focal organization would select the entity to mimic from within its legitimacy group. Kim
(2013) further contended that such groups would function as a strategic cognitive group, a concept that is further discussed in the next section. Of the three isomorphic forces, mimicry has apparently had the greatest appeal to management scholars and is the one most often studied empirically (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999). Mizruchi and Fein (1999) contended that several of these studies could equally and plausibly demonstrate normative or coercive forces. The reason why one organizational copies another could be economically rational or normatively–socially rationale; both lead to organizations becoming more alike, and reduce the appeal of new and differentiating behaviors.
Although institutional theory is generally seen as a theory of why organizations do the same things and become more alike as their field matures, more recent researchers The Price of Prestige 40 have assessed under what conditions an organization might experience divergent change or the deinstitutionalization of a field. This result might occur if the institutional template or institutional logic that a focal organization seeks to mimic does not confer legitimacy or increased legitimacy (Beckert, 2010). Kondra and Hinings (1998) developed a taxonomy of organizations that matrixes institutional fit and performance. Organizations that have low performance and low fit (called dogs), may not survive, and will not affect institutional norms. Low-fit, high-performing organizations (renegades) who have identified opportunities outside the normal institutional logic might influence the institutional operators to adopt new practices, norms, or opportunities through mimicry.
Exogenous shocks could always account for changing a field. As an example of another approach to change, Oliver (1991) proposed a typology of decisions that an organization facing institutional pressures could select among. The most commonly chosen is acquiescence. Acquiescence tactics include mimicking other organizations, complying and obeying rules, and habit, following invisible, taken-for-granted norms. Other choices include (a) compromise, which might be more symbolic than actual; (b) avoidance, perhaps concealing nonconformity; (c) defiance; and (d) manipulation. In a further paper identifying factors that predict deinstitutionalization or delegitimation, Oliver (1992) examined political, social, and functional pressures at both the organization and the environmental level. Changing economic utility and increasing competition are examples of functional forces. Political pressure comes from performance issues or innovation.
These breakdowns would presage the individual or collective search for a new template.
The kinds of change that institutional theorists have examined to date empirically are more of the isomorphic than of the divergent variety. Given that this study seeks to The Price of Prestige 41 explain why groups of organizations act in a similar manner the isomorphic lens is appropriate for the analysis of decision-making about tuition increases.
Institutional theory has been the lens selected to view organizational behavior and change in many studies of higher education institutions. Higher education is cited as an example of a highly institutionalized field (Kraatz & Zajac, 1996; Scott, 2010).
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) hypothesized that the more ambiguous an organization’s goals are, the more likely it is to model itself after others that it perceives to be more successful. They also suggested that “organizational fields that include a large professionally trained labor force will be driven primarily by status competition” (p. 154).
Both of these conditions apply to the field of higher education and to its member organizations. Toma (2012) further observed, at the opening of the report on institutional strategy among colleges and universities in the state of Georgia, that “they are eerily similar in vision . . . seemingly obsessed with moving to the next level. Their common goal is legitimacy through enhanced prestige” (p. 118).
Most scholarly studies applying institutional theory in higher education have found evidence supporting isomorphic change; a few have not been able to confirm such adaption. Tolbert (1985) tested both the resource dependency theory and the institutional theory in studying how public and private nonprofit organizations organize the administrative offices that manage their relationships with external sources of financial support (state government for the first, donors for the second). Tolbert found that institutional theory predicted the conditions under which resources dependency would be found, and advocated for more research, using a combined perspective. Leslie and
Rhoades (1995) developed several hypotheses about rising administrative costs using institutional theory, but did not report the results of any empirical tests. In connection The Price of Prestige 42 with the proposition about the adoption of administrative structures developed by successful organizations, Leslie and Rhoades (1995) pointed to the formation of technology transfer offices that would emulate Harvard, Stanford, and MIT to develop or enhance an additional stream of revenue. In their own words, they described this as “if
Harvard is doing it, it must be good” (p. 199). They also pointed to the desire of student support staff to be seen as professionals. Gates (1997) studied the case of a university retrenchment, finding the presence of all three forms of isomorphic pressure and adaptation. For example, fiscal uncertainty triggered the process of retrenchment, but coercive pressure came from other colleges within the university who had stronger reputations and were able to avoid substantial budget cuts. Morphew and Huisman (2002) were one of several studies about the declining diversity of higher education institutions over time. They explained the patterns of academic drift towards the structures and strategies of their more prestigious peers through institutional theory and isomorphism.
Like Kraatz and Zajac (1996), the key variable in their study was the decision by nonflagship universities in a state to emulate their flagship university by adding programs, especially graduate programs. Martins (2005) and Sauder and Espeland (2009) both observe that rankings published by the media such as USNWR are important sources of isomorphic pressure, but they differed on how or how much an organization would change in response. Sauder and Espeland (2009) suggested that the rankings provide incentive to decouple symbolic response and substantive response because they are seen as popular with outsiders, but are resented by insiders. Martins (2005) showed that they appear to matter more to insiders, especially if the change in ranking is not consonant with an organization’s image of itself. The Price of Prestige 43 Finding against the explanatory role of institutional theory, Kraatz and Zajac
(1996) reviewed the strategic decision to add professional schools and degrees at liberal arts colleges that respond to market and social pressures such as when students’ life goals shift to more of a career focus. They found no support for any of their institution-theory- derived hypotheses such as the emulation of more prestigious organizations by less prestigious ones. Their finding might have been affected their mode of analysis: they divided their universe of 631 private nonprofit liberal arts colleges into only two groups:
68 were assigned to the most prestigious, higher-status group and all of the others were assigned to the lower status group, depending on the selectivity rating published in a college guide book. The only organizational change variable they analyzed was the adoption of professional programs by these liberal arts colleges.
When the dynamics of institutional theory and isomorphism that have just been explored are considered together, the second theoretical proposition emerges as part of a framework within which to investigate and evaluate the primary research question.
. Proposition 2: In the field of higher education, organizations seeking
legitimacy imitate the strategies of organizations that they perceive as more
prestigious (aspirational peers).
Management Cognition
Tolbert (1985) advocated that organizational phenomena are too complex to be described adequately by a single theory. Managerial cognition complements the focus on the role of human cognition in neoinstitutionalism (Suddaby, Seidl, & Lê (2013), and the linkage is between cognition, strategy, and strategic decision making (Porac & Thomas,
2002); therefore, managerial cognition was selected as a second theoretical lens through which to explore whether a relationship exists between prestige seeking and pricing The Price of Prestige 44 decisions in private, nonprofit universities, a relationship of which decision makers might not be consciously aware.
Managerial cognition is defined as “knowledge structures, core beliefs, causal maps and schemas” (Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1997, p. 62). As a multilevel construct, management scholars have developed and tested a theory about management cognition at the individual level, and more abstractly, at the group and organizational level
(Narayanan, Zane, & Kemmerer, 2011; Walsh, 1995). Managerial cognition helps us think about how managers make sense of complex, and ambiguous information and how they make decisions. Mental models or mental maps are simplified knowledge structures, cognitive representations of how the business and competitive environment works (Gary
& Wood, 2011). These cognitive structures filter actors’ understandings of both the environment around their organizational and the intraorganizational context. Mental models influence decision making as managers test strategic choices against these simplified representations.
Managerial cognition is closely linked to strategy. Among the 10 schools for strategy formation that they identified, Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) labelled the study of mental maps and strategy formation “the Cognitive School” of strategy (p. 23). The focus at the individual level in strategic cognition is usually on the influence of a single leader’s cognition in strategic choice; at the group level, research has centered on dominant logics, that set of assumptions about the characteristics of the core business, the identity of critical tasks, shared by members of a group that frame many strategic decisions, and, at a higher level of aggregation of organizations, on industry recipes or
“the shared knowledge based that those socialized into an industry take as professional common sense” (Spender, 1989, p. 66). At the organizational level, several authors The Price of Prestige 45 characterize shared core cognitive structures as strategic “beliefs” (Lyles & Schwenk,
1992; Porac & Thomas, 2002; Tikkanen, Lamberg, Parvinen, & Kallunki, 2005). Three types of such “beliefs” that affect top manager strategic decision making are beliefs about who they compete against, beliefs about organizational reputations, and beliefs about what strategic variables top managers should focus on (Abrahamson & Fombrun, 1994).
Tikkanen et al. (2005) suggested that these beliefs relate to cognitive levels: (a) at the industry level, beliefs about an industry recipe; (b) at the subgroup level within an industry, beliefs about reputational rankings or the social evaluation of competitors and competitive performance which results first in identification with a specific a subgroup and second to boundary beliefs which limit the nature and composition of the interorganizational community; and (c) at the product level, product ontologies or basic beliefs about product attributes, usage, and buyer characteristics. Porac and Thomas
(2002) suggested that these shared core cognitive structures affect what becomes a strategic issue. The perspective of this researcher’s study is that pricing or tuition increases should be treated as a strategic issue and decision rather than as a routine, taken-for-granted decision.
Managerial cognition has been studied from the perspective of why firms fail to respond successfully to changes in their strategic environments and how they do respond successfully. Examples of the first phenomenon include case studies by Tripsas and
Gavetti (2000) of Polaroid’s inability to transition to digital photography, and by Porac,
Thomas, and Baden-Fuller (1989, 2011) of the failure of the Hawick, Scotland, fully fashioned knitwear industry to adapt to the incursion of non-Scottish competitors from closely related product segments. As an example of both successful and unsuccessful adaptation, Barr, Stimpert, and Huff (1992) used content analysis of annual reports to The Price of Prestige 46 compare and contrast the mental maps and causal beliefs of two railroads companies, one of which remained independent through an environmental transition and the other of which did not. Examples of positive adaptation include Eggers and Kaplan (2013), a study of how managerial cognition and attention affected the speed of entry of communications technology manufacturers into the fiber optic market, and Kabanoff and
Brown (2005), a study of several large Australian organizations which explored the content and structure of top manager knowledge structures and how cognitive strategic groups form when top managers have similar knowledge structures. Central themes that emerge from the study of managerial cognition in strategy include the concept of cognitive communities or cognitive strategic groups (Kaplan, 2011), and cognitive inertia
(Narayanan et al., 2011), as well as a cognitive perspective on imitation or emulation of another organization (Labianca, Fairbank, Thomas, Gioia, & Umphress, 2001). In the next three sections, the researcher defines and discusses these three facets of the broader theory of managerial cognition and how they influence strategic decision making.
Cognitive strategic groups. Somewhat like institutional theorists, some cognitive theorists sought to discover how people in different organizations come to perceive opportunity in similar ways and to adopt similar strategies (Walsh, 1995). In answering that question, cognitive theorists developed the concept of a cognitive strategic group, which is a group of like competitors within an industry whose top managers share beliefs about how to manage their task environments and how to addressstrategic choices. In a cognitive strategic group, managers in different member organizations have similar mental maps, at the core of which lie fundamental beliefs about identity and causality
(Porac et al., 1989). The strategic choices that the Scottish knitwear manufacturers had made resulted in similar product (fully fashioned, mainly cashmere knitwear, but not The Price of Prestige 47 designer), same supplier of yarn, small production runs, similar target customers
(described as individuals in the top 2–5% of net worth in any country who shop for value, not price and are unaffected by economic trends), and cultivation of the same retailers through high levels of service. The strategic choices are manifestations of a commonly held and inwardly focused belief about organizational identity: “We are the best in the world at fully fashioned cashmere knitwear” (Porac et al., 2011, p. 652). Other studies of cognitive strategic groups include Illinois bank holding companies (Reger & Huff, 1993), and American universities (Brint, Riddle, & Hanneman, 2006; Labianca et al., 2001).
The idea of cognitive strategic groups is similar to strategic groups. A strategic group of organizations within an industry clusters around similar strategies (McGee &
Thomas, 1986). Within a group, organizations are rivals and compete against one another; being a member of one group in the industry is considered more desirable
(McGee, Thomas, & Pruett, 1995). As an illustration of this hierarchical structure of groups, Brewer, Gates, and Goldman (2002), divided higher education institutions into three strategic groups: (a) prestigious, (b) prestige seeking, and (c) reputation. The researchers established the groups inductively, depending on the data that they gathered from interviewing senior decision makers at colleges in their study about the mission, the objectives, and the allocation of resources to selected strategies. Those in the prestige group had enduring reputations for having done a good job, had goals indicating maintaining excellence or improving quality; therefore, they focused more on internal values of stakeholders such as faculty or administrators more than external stakeholders such as prospective students. Prestige seekers were allocating resources heavily to prestige building. Colleges in the reputation group were more externally focused on building their reputations. The groups are cognitive strategic groups because the The Price of Prestige 48 segmentation that defines a group’s membership and boundaries uses image (excellence), goals, objectives, and strategies of senior decision makers, not economic dimensions such as size or profitability.
Cognitive strategic groups differ from strategic groups in the way that group membership is selected. Cognitive groups are an intermediate layer above organizations and below industry and they simplify the competitive landscape that managers must scan and evaluate as they formulate strategy (Porac & Thomas, 1990). Such “strategic reference groups” are selected not only because of their similar structural characteristics, but also because of similarity in their identity attributes such as image and reputation.
Cognitive groups were more strongly internally focused on other members of the same group and their beliefs, often at the heart of their identities, are strongly held. Moreover, managers might have a self-centered view of competition: that is, the attributes upon which they base their cognitive grouping might differ from the attributes that have the most salience to customers (Ng, Westgren, & Sonka, 2009). Empirical work illustrates the primary difference between these two concepts. Scholars examining strategic groups have tended to select grouping dimensions a-priori and around easily available sources of data such as financial records rather than trying to understand against whom the managers of a focal organization think they compete. In contrast, the cognitive approach uses a number of empirical techniques to extract and depict managers’ mental maps
(Huff, 1990; Reger & Huff, 1993), including repertory grids and content analysis of published documents such shareholder letters in annual reports.
Some of the research on strategic groups has migrated from groups perceived by managers themselves, to group definitions imposed by external organizations (Porac et al., 2011). Barreto and Baden-Fuller (2006) termed such groups “legitimacy based The Price of Prestige 49 groups.” When the criteria for membership of a category or a grouping is set by an external legitimacy provider such as a regulator or the media, groups and categories could be conceived of as similar to coercive forces. Legitimacy providers, according to Barreto and Baden-Fuller (2006), are third parties that “have (the) status to assess the conformity of firm behavior to specific socially constructed standards and to do this, need to categorize the firms” (p. 1561). In higher education, at least two major external legitimacy providers are known: the Carnegie classification system and the publishing industry ranking systems. Both of these systems are external to higher education. The first legitimacy provider, the Carnegie Classification system, was intended as a measure of the diversity of types of higher education. The group of Research-1 or research extensive universities is a group to which other universities aspire to be members. The second type of legitimacy provider are, publishersof college and university rankings such as the USNWR rankings,. As will be discussed further in the next section of this literature review, scholars have studied groups of similar rank such as the top 50 national universities.
Strategic groups or cognitive strategic groups have been established in a number of industries, including banking (Barreto & Baden-Fuller, 2006; Reger & Huff, 1993), pharmaceuticals (Osborne, Stubbart, & Ramaprasad, 2001), mutual funds (Kim, 2013), and hospitals (Spencer, Peyrefitte, & Churchman, 2003). Osborne et al. (2001), studying the pharmaceutical industry, found convergence between structurally defined strategic groups (market focus, product focus, geographic focus) and cognitive groups in the pharmaceuticals industry. Brint et al. (2006) also studied strategic and cognitive groups
(but among American, 4-year colleges and universities) and found more support for cognitive strategic groups. They compared the references sets that college presidents The Price of Prestige 50 nominated with the Carnegie structural classification and found both a strong disconnect between the (Carnegie) structurally defined groupings and presidential “reference groups” and strong evidence of presidential aspirations for upward mobility to the elite private university status.
Cognitive strategic groups play an important role in strategic decision making.
They simplify the extent of environmental scanning. In higher education, prestige and reputational rank appear to play a significant role in the selection of strategic group members.
Cognitive inertia. Cognitive inertia is both the process and the state of becoming overly dependent on a mental model and failing to update it for significant changes in the external environment (Hodgkinson, 1997). Mental models mediate between action and environmental stimuli; therefore, they are central to understanding how organizations change or fail to change (Mezias, Grinyer, & Guth, 2001). Cognition and mental maps, like other abstract concepts in the scholarly literature, can refer to the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. Group maps arise from the aggregation of individual maps; else, there might be some modification to those individual maps because of pressures for conformity or through social interaction (Schneider & Angelmar, 1990).
When decision makers share a mental map in different organizations it is called an industry recipe; when strategic decision makers in a focal organization share a mental map, it is called a dominant or institutional logic (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). Mental maps are a multilevel phenomenon; therefore, cognitive inertia, manifested as the failure to update a mental map, can also be a multilevel phenomenon.
Scholars have discussed a variety of conditions in which cognitive inertia has occurred. The more mature an industry and the more stable an industry recipe, the The Price of Prestige 51 narrower are the choices for structural change (Tikkanen, Lamberg, Parvinen, &
Kallunki, 2005). Porac and Thomas (1990) and Labianca et al. (2001) both provided evidence that cognitive communities are stable even when upheaval occurs in the environment. Strong identities have been linked to cognitive inertia (Anand, Joshi, &
O’Leary-Kelly, 2013; Narayanan et al., 2011). To the extent that leaders are reluctant to discard an older identity, the updating of mental models might lag environmental change and be problematic (Kaplan, Murray, & Henderson, 2003). In the perspective of
Tikkanen et al. (2005), beliefs about industry recipes and reputational rankings are more inert than beliefs about products and organizational boundaries. In industries in which models are complex, the underlying knowledge structure is likely to be broader, and changes in the environment are more likely to be noticed, promoting change. By contrast, a more focused map or schema promotes a narrower scan and set of considered strategic alternatives (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). On a different level, a common form of cognitive inertia might stem from disconnects between managers’ assessments of the attributes upon which they base their cognitive grouping and the attributes that have most salience to customers (Ng et al., 2009).
The process of managerial cognition connects scanning and decision making.
Cognitive inertia is often attributed to the failure to scan, that is, the failure to see changes in the environment because of a focus on the wrong dimensions of competitors and their performance (Ng et al., 2009) or to having to confront a variety of alternatives that have potentially threatening consequences and, implicitly, no agreement about the preferred choice (Hodgkinson & Wright, 2002). Porac et al. (2011) observed that “myopic enactment” or blind spots among members of the Scottish, fully fashioned, knitwear strategic group in which, in a recursive fashion, beliefs guided investment and investment The Price of Prestige 52 constrained beliefs, “enactment tends to favor the present rather than the future, the near rather than the far and successes rather than failure” (p. 658). The environment might determine whether managers would frame a change as a threat or as an opportunity. If environmental change is framed as a threat that could reduce the organization’s control over its environment, organizations are more likely to respond by re-emphasizing routines that appear to enhance legitimacy (George, Chattopadhyay, Sitkin, & Barden
2006).
Cognitive biases also contribute to cognitive inertia. Researchers such as
Schwenk (1988) or Abrahamson and Fombrun (1994) have determined that, in forming or updating mental maps, decision makers manifest the same cognitive biases or heuristics as affect other nonstrategic decisions. For example, the availability bias refers to using information from a past situation, which is easily remembered, in projecting a future event outcome; those with the confirmation bias reject disconfirming information.
The confirmation bias promotes comparison to similar rivals. Ng et al. (2009) model the overconfidence bias in which managers become overconfident that they had correctly categorized competition and ignored new competitors. Overconfidence goes hand in hand with success (Shimizu & Hitt, 2004). Success also limits attention to new, negative information. Organizations with long tenured management and older, larger organizations are more likely to have institutionalized and rigidified mindsets.
In sum, several factors differentially impede the updating of mental maps and affect whether an organization will respond strategically to changes in its environment.
Imitation (and differentiation). Imitation in managerial cognition and mimesis in institutional theory are similar constructs in a behavioral model of strategic decision making in which social comparison drives strategic choices (Johnson & Hoopes, 2003). The Price of Prestige 53 Direct imitation results from formal and informal communications and the social exchange of ideas (Porac et al., 1989). Indirect imitation is the result of a finite number of solutions to a problem introduced by a change in the market or technical environment.
Within a cognitive strategic group or legitimacy group, both imitation and competition exist. In economics, competition is usually defined by product substitution whereas cognitive theorists look to an identity basis. Within a group, rivals compete, but not on the critical dimensions of an industry recipe. Ideally, organizations will maintain a balance on the competitive cusp (McNamara, Deephouse, & Luce, 2003) where by differentiation and conformity are balanced, but this seems to be more of a theoretical ideal than empirically a measured and confirmed reality.
Emulation, according to Labianca et al. (2001), is striving to equal or surpass a comparison organization. It is more strategic than it is operational. Decision makers select organizations to emulate that are structurally similar and comparable in attributes such as identity and reputation. For self-enhancement, decision makers in the focal organization make upwards comparisons to organizations with better reputations
(Labianca et al., 2001). For self-protection, they select organizations of lesser reputation or prestige. Imitation might be motivated by the desire to maintain competitive parity, to limit rivalry, or to follow organizations that are perceived to be superior in some dimension (Lieberman & Asaba, 2006). Being imitated is recognition of success
(Ordanini et al., 2008). Studies of benchmarking partners have shown that organizations that a focal organization has selected to be benchmarked were most likely to be prestigious organizations or organizations linked through executive migration, manifesting normative forces (Still & Strang, 2009) and emphasizing the importance of identity in the comparison process. The Price of Prestige 54 Various motivations for imitating have been discussed in scholarly literature.
Imitation is often characterized as a risk reduction strategy (Ordanini et al., 2008).
Labianca et al. (2001) noted the dual motives of self-enhancement (upwards comparisons) and self-preservation (downwards comparisons). Although ex ante, the outcome of a course of action, which is modelled by an organization that is perceived to have greater legitimacy within a group, might be negative; nevertheless, other organizations within that group will select and follow the one identified as most legitimate by an outside legitimacy provider (Barreto & Baden-Fuller, 2006).
One of the outcomes of imitation is that organizations end up appearing to be similar (Deephouse, 1999, p. 152). For example, within a cognitive strategic group, homogeneity of beliefs leads to similar competitive positions (Abrahamson & Fombrun,
1994). Where competition is intense, pursuing a homogenous strategy—the same as rivals—scan lower risk and reduce intensity of competition. Where change is incremental, imitation can diffuse rivalry (Lieberman & Asaba, 2006).
Under circumstances such as high uncertainty in the environment, imitation can be dysfunctional. When everyone does the same thing, it is less likely than any one will succeed much more than any other (Lieberman & Asaba, 2006). Earlier in an industry life cycle, when ambiguity is higherand the winners are less apparent, imitation is less likely
(Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Strategic complexity, a function of (a) the number of elements in a strategy and (b) the interaction between those elements, makes imitation less successful and less likely (Rivkin, 2000). The Price of Prestige 55 . Proposition 3: Managers’ strategic mindsets about the membership of a
cognitive strategic group and legitimate competitive behaviors frame
decisions, including decisions about tuition increases.
Application of Propositions in Higher Education
Transitioning from theory to its application in higher education, scholars have published a number of studies about university prestige seeking and its effects. Some studies are a-theoretical, reporting the results of regressions, but have been unable to assess whether a relationship is causal. There are a number of instances in which institutional theory was selected to frame such studies. Managerial cognition has been less studied. In this section of the literature review, the researcher summarizes the results of the scholarly studies that are most relevant to the propositions presented as the theoretical framework for this study.
A great deal of literature is available about higher education, and about prestige seeking in higher education. Some scholars have studied prestige seeking at the department level (e.g., for sociology departments: Burris, 2004; Keith, 1999). Others have studied prestige seeking at the undergraduate or graduate level, or at the school level—the law school or the business school for example (e.g., Elsbach & Kramer, 1996;
Gioia & Corley, 2002; Labianca, Fairbank, Andrevski & Parzen, 2009; Sauder &
Espeland, 2009; Sauder & Fine, 2008; Wilson & McKiernan, 2011). Yet more scholars have found evidence that prestige seeking is not merely an American phenomenon, it is a global (e.g., Baden-Fuller, Ravazzolo, & Schweizer, 2000; Hazelkorn, 2013). This researcher’s study focuses on the United States for two reasons. In many other countries, only public institutions are authorized to offer higher education and their levels of tuition are set by the government with, for example, the country’s social and economic interests The Price of Prestige 56 in mind. In the United States, more than 3,000 colleges and universities grant bachelor’s degrees or higher degrees. What is relatively unique about the United States is that about half of these colleges are private nonprofit colleges and universities. The other half is either public universities or for-profit organizations. As the researcher explained in the introduction, the focus of this study is on under graduate tuition at private nonprofit colleges and universities, rather than on the public universities in which tuition increases might have been affected by changes in government funding for higher education. Rises in tuition for graduate level programs have not drawn the same level of attention as increases at the undergraduate level. The College Board Trends in College Pricing
(Baum & Ma, 2011), an annual publication, for example, reports only undergraduate tuition.
Scholars have studied prestige seeking for its impact on faculty (e.g., O’Meara &
Bloomgarden, 2011) and from the perspective of the student through the lens of human capital theory to determine whether the reward or return on investment from attending a more prestigious college is greater than from a less prestigious counterpart (e.g.,
Wellman, Gowan, & White, 2006). Prestige seeking has been studied by economists such as Winston (1999, 2000), Garvin (1980), James (1990) and Ehrenberg (2003), higher education scholars such as Clotfelter (1996) or Toma (2012), and less often, by management scholars such as Gioia and Thomas (1996), Rindova et al. (2005) or Sauder and Espeland (2009).
In higher education, a wealth of journals is both scholarly and practitioner- oriented, for example, Research in Higher Education, the Review of Higher Education, or
The Journal of Higher Education. Industry-specific magazines such as Change or periodicals such as the Chronicle of Higher Education contain articles about prestige The Price of Prestige 57 seeking, but their content has not been peer reviewed. For example, in Change, Zemsky,
Shaman, and Iannozzi (1997) proposed a taxonomy of institutions serving the undergraduate degree market ranging from “name-brand” to “user-friendly” (p. 25).
Tuition was highest in the name-brand private colleges and universities. The Chronicle of
Higher Education (Hoover, 2011) reported the decline in Syracuse University’s ranking during the tenure of its former president because it focused on opening up education to students from a wider variety of backgrounds, while more recently Inside Higher
Education (Rivard, 2014) reported that, under its new president, Syracuse would pay more attention to the rankings metrics of selectivity, specifically the SAT scores and grade point averages of incoming students.
In sum, the challenge that the scholarly literature presented was to limit the literature review to only studies that pertained to the theoretical framework and that addressed institutional behaviors and decision making, either for the institution as a whole or with a focus on undergraduate studies.
As the researcher showed in the previous section of the literature review, scholars have selected indexes such as the USNWR rankings as indicators of prestige. The
Carnegie Classification, although not intended for the purpose, has similarly been employed as an indicator of relative status. A third indicator of prestige seeking that some scholars have studied is colleges that have changed their names to university, going beyond baccalaureate degree granting to add graduate programs (e.g., Garvin, 1980;
Jaquette, 2013; Rusch & Wilbur, 2007). Studies using the National Research Council rankings of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs as evidence of prestige or prestige seeking are not included in this review because they are neither institution-wide indicators nor are they focused on undergraduate education. The Price of Prestige 58 In the following sections, the findings of scholarly studies about prestige seeking are reported in relation to one of the three propositions in the theoretical framework: prestige seeking, imitation of prestige seeking strategies, and prestige seeking as part of decision-maker mental maps.
Prestige Seeking by Universities
. Proposition 1: Private nonprofit higher education institutions seek to
maximize their prestige because it signals higher quality and enables them to
increase revenue.
The purpose of the first search was to determine whether other scholars had already established a direct relationship between prestige seeking and tuition increases.
The purpose of the next search reported in this section was to identify studies that examined prestige seeking as the organizational goal. The purpose of the final search reported in this section was to find studies that address prestige and quality.
Prestige and tuition. In the initial analysis of the literature, the researcher sought a scholarly work product that included both price or tuition and prestige as variables. In the economics literature, a plethora of studies related enrollment to tuition, gross or net, without reference to prestige, but very few studies addressed tuition and prestige directly.
Studies with prestige and tuition discounting (which is not addressed in this study) included studies by Gilroy (2003) and Gunderson (2009).
The first study to evaluate whether a direct relationship existed between prestige and tuition was Monks and Ehrenberg (1999). Their objective was to analyze the impact of the rankings on applications, admissions, enrollments, and pricing policies. Pricing policy consists of both “sticker price” and discounts. Analyzing 16 of the top 25, private, nonprofit, national universities and 13 of the top 25, liberal arts colleges (also private The Price of Prestige 59 nonprofit) over the 10-year period from 1988–1989 to 1998–1999, Monks and Ehrenberg
(1999) found that neither an increase nor a decrease in rank affected sticker price in the next year, but that both directions of change in rank affected the amount of discount and revenue realized from tuition. An increase in rank was followed by a decrease in discount and an increase in net revenue in the next year, while a decrease in rank was followed by the opposite effect. Monks and Ehrenberg did not approach the issue from a theoretical perspective, but they hypothesized that an institution whose rank fell would not want to signal a lowering of their academic quality by reducing their tuition. A concern affecting the generalizability of the findings of Monks and Ehrenberg might be that they selected institutions already at the top of the prestige hierarchy and did not provide statistics about the frequency or magnitude of changes in rank, their independent variable.
According to Bastedo and Bowman (2011), higher education administrators act as if their college’s rank or prestige is related to revenue so this study tests for such a relationship. Both institutional theory and resource dependency could be employed to explain a relationship between these factors. Bastedo and Bowman hypothesized that universities that receive the benefit of higher USNWR rankings (“the imprimatur of third party status providers,” p. 10) would be able to charge more. The empirical evidence is relevant because the data set pertained to all 225 universities that were named in the 1998
USNWR rankings. Directionally, like Monks and Ehrenberg (1999), Bastedo and
Bowman (2011) wanted to assess whether higher rankings led to higher tuition in a later period. One of the differences between the study of Monks and Ehrenberg (1999) and that of Bastedo and Bowman (2011) is that the latter authors specified a longer lag factor
(of 4–8 years) for the impact of a higher ranking on tuition. The data set that Bastedo and
Bowman (2011) used included both public and private nonprofit universities. Their The Price of Prestige 60 conclusion that out-of-state college tuition, but not in-state college tuition, could be predicted by rankings does not appear to take into account institutional control, which is critical because private nonprofit universities usually set a tuition rate that is indifferent between in-state and out-of state student status. Primarily because of this oversight, the evidence could not be counted as confirming or disconfirming for the relationship of tuition and prestige at private nonprofit universities.
In a third study, Rindova et al. (2005) specified and found a relationship between price premium and two independent variables: reputation or prominence, measured by media rankings, and perceived quality, which itself is a function of signals about two more variables: the quality of inputs, as measured by student test scores, and the quality of assets measured by years of faculty academic experience. Their results are of limited relevance to this analysis because (a) their data was concerned with graduate business schools; and (b) the dependent variable, price premium, was measured by the mean base starting salary of program graduates rather than by the tuition charged for the programs.
The inconclusive results of the three studies that assessed a direct relationship between tuition and prestige seeking clearly demonstrated the need for a different approach. In the remainder of this section of the literature review, the researcher reports the results of research that pertains to the propositions derived from the management theory framework, a combination of institutional theory and managerial cognition in which researchers argue that universities that seek prestige to enhance their legitimacy make decisions about tuition increases in the context of mental maps of the prestige- seeking strategies of the members of their cognitive strategic group.
Prestige as the organizational goal. The first proposition states that private nonprofit higher educational institutions seek to maximize their prestige seeking as the The Price of Prestige 61 organizational objective. Most scholars seem to attribute to Veblen (1918) the origin of the concept of higher educational organizations as prestige seeking. According to Kerr
(1991), “All 2,400 non‘specialized’ institutions of higher education in the United States aspire to higher things.” (p. 8). Kerr was generalizing from studies by Abbott (1974),
Moyer and Kretlow (1978) and Garvin (1980) among others. Abbott (1974) studied whether concern with prestige among both public and private universities would result in the prioritization of adaptive goals (accommodation of the external environment to receive a reward) over official goals. Abbott concluded that the greater the prestige, the less institutions were concerned with adapting and accommodating the external environment. Moyer and Kretlow (1978) questioned senior financial administrators about resource allocation and found administrator decisions to be consistent with prestige maximization.
Two frequently cited studies that take an economics perspective on prestige maximization are Garvin’s (1980) and James’ (1990). Since graduate programs play a major role in the generation of prestige, Garvin (1980) provided evidence of institutional movement by the highest degree offered between 1952 and 1966. Out of a universe of
1,178 institutions, 235 institutions went to granting master’s degrees from granting bachelor’s degrees, and another 87 institutions had moved to granting doctoral degrees from granting master’s degrees. Further, Garvin (1980) formalized an economic model of university behavior in which utility maximization was a function of prestige, student quality, and the number of students, but was constrained by total revenue. Prestige is an aggregate of the prestige of individual departments which itself is a function of the number of productive scholars and the amount of research they produce. James (1990) proposed a similar utility maximization function comprised of two variables, prestige and The Price of Prestige 62 faculty satisfaction, also constrained by available resources. James (1990) did not provide the result of an empirical test of the model. McGuire, Richman, Daly, and Jorjani (1988) established and tested a third economic model about the productivity of reputation- producing activities in a university, specifically research. In several places, the words reputation and prestige were used interchangeably. Reputation or prestige were proposed as the output of the research process and were measured as a sum of the rankings from the Conference Board of the Associated Research Councils. McGuire et al. reported, among other things, that some universities are more efficient in producing prestige than others and that it is expensive for universities to change their reputations.
Recent articles on the economics of higher education have begun to take prestige seeking among higher educational institutions for granted and as a premise of their argument (e.g., Melguizo & Strober, 2007). In the literature about managing or administering higher education institutions, evidence exists of the same. For example,
Toma (2012) stated, “Prestige is to higher education what profit is to corporations”
(p. 119). Prestige as the organizational objective was not questioned.
Prestige and quality. In the review of the theoretical literature, the researcher identified that prestige was the goal that nonprofit organizations select to maximize, but also that prestige is important as a signal of quality, thus, supporting higher levels of and increases in prices.
Terenzini and Pascarella (1994) conducted a wide-ranging review of literature published between 1985 and 1990 aboutthe effects of colleges on students, and concluded that institutional prestige and reputation do not reflect educational quality. Carey (2008) echoed the same theme 14 years later, calling for a severance of the “iron bond” (p. A38) between price, price increases, and perceptions of college quality. In this context, The Price of Prestige 63 organizational quality was the focus, rather than specific quality-related attributes of the service or outputs, and activities were signals rather than substance (Conrad & Eagan,
1989; McPherson & Winston, 1993). Monks and Ehrenberg (1999) suggested that an organization whose rank fell would not want to reduce tuition because it would signal lower quality. Gioia and Corley (2002) confirmed, “The ranking number has become a surrogate sound-bite index of program quality for prospective students, corporate recruiters, funding agencies, and other stakeholders” (p. 108).
Although rankings might be associated with perceptions of quality, Bowman and
Bastedo (2009) tested tuition as a signal of quality using data from the top 50 national universities and the top 50 liberal arts colleges. In their approach, tuition is an alternative to the rankings as an indicator of quality, and they quantified the impact of a change in tuition on a subsequent year’s admissions selectivity. Bowman and Bastedo’s findings are mixed—more pronounced among institutions ranked between 26 and 50 than ranked in the top 25, and more pronounced at liberal arts colleges than at national universities.
Although issues of validity, relevance, functionality, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility are associated with using rankings as summary measure of academic quality (Dill & Soo, 2004), and issues are associated with the power of the organizations that issue the rankings to define the terms for university legitimacy and the variables of competitive strategy, no other broadly accepted systems today replace them. Therefore, universities pursue higher prestige as measured by rankings of American universities published in the United States by USNWR or more broadly by global periodicals such as the Times Higher Education Supplement, regardless of how well the measured items truly reflect academic quality or whether it leads to higher prices. The Price of Prestige 64 Imitation of Prestige-Seeking Strategies
. Proposition 2: Higher educational organizations that seek legitimacy or
prestige imitate the strategies and actions of organizations that they perceive
as more prestigious.
In this section, the researcher reports an analysis of scholarly research that first looks at how universities see themselves in relation to peers or competitors and then reports several studies identifying the key dimensions upon which colleges and universities compete for greater prestige..
Labianca et al. (2001) made the most extensive study of who emulates whom. Out of 372 survey questionnaires returned, 302 institutions identified competitors that they emulated. Among private colleges emulated, Stanford was named by 25, Notre Dame by
21, Duke and Harvard by 18 and 17 respectively, and liberal arts colleges, Carleton and
Williams, each by 14 other colleges. Public colleges most frequently emulated are the
University of California–Berkeley and the University of Michigan. Labianca et al. (2001) found that emulation selections were, as might be expected, a function of structural characteristics such as ownership (public versus private nonprofit), and type, usually referred to highest degree granted. In terms of identity-related characteristics, reputation
(these researchers used data from the Gourman Report for their reputation variable), size, and church affiliation were the most influential in the selection of organizations to emulate. For example, universities with a catholic affiliation such as Duquesne, Loyola of
Chicago, or the University of Dallas often chose to emulate higher ranked but also catholic affiliated Notre Dame University and Boston College .
Conrad and Eagan (1989) observed six behaviors that institutions were adopting ostensibly to increase quality, but, in the authors’ opinion, in reality more aimed at The Price of Prestige 65 enhancing the institution’s prestige, one of which directly related to tuition. The six behaviors or widely recognized rules were (a) recruiting star faculty; (b) tightening admissions standards and becoming more selective; (c) raising tuition; (d) curriculum reform, but more likely in the direction of institutional conformity and in the imposition of “fashionable curriculum models” (p. 11); rather than building upon the institution’s unique strengths; (e) business or industry partnerships increasing the funding for research; and (f) institutional imaging or public relations efforts to enhance the institution’s image with external stakeholders, through college athletics success and other avenues. Other authors such as Brewer et al. (2002) confirmed star faculty, and tightened admissions standards, but not the other four behaviors or strategies. Brewer et al. (2002) selected and tested prestige-seeking investments or strategies including (a) the use of merit scholarships to attract students with high SAT or ACT scores (tightening admissions standards), (b) the recruitment of faculty with strong research records or records of winning federal research grants and raising a department’s National Research
Council rank (star faculty), (c) labs and facilities, (d) athletic scholarships and highly paid coaches, and (e) other physical assets such as sports arenas (p. 35). Brewer et al. (2002) provided a combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathered from site visits to 26 institutions, 12 of which were nonprofit colleges or universities, to confirm the enactment of these prestige-seeking strategies.
Toma (2008) reported case studies of prestige seeking and the generic set of approaches for effecting this among four public universities. Toma (2012) broadened the analysis to 38 universities, representing a diversity of institutional types in the Atlanta area, both public, such as the University of Georgia or Kennesaw State University, and private, such as Emory University, Brennau University, Oglethorpe University or the The Price of Prestige 66 Savannah College of Art and Design. Toma (2012) confirmed behaviors such as aggressively recruiting accomplished students (selectivity, increasing test scores, merit scholarships); investment in research capacity and infrastructure; adding master’s and professional degrees to emulate the most prestigious in the local market; upgrading academic buildings; moving athletics programs to better conferences; and hiring noteworthy faculty. Toma (2012) observed an additional prestige seeking behavior: the subsidization of the traditional liberal arts education with revenues from “peripheral” programs for nontraditional students at universities like Brennau University, Mercer
University, or Piedmont College. Jaquette (2013) studied baccalaureate colleges that were becoming universities usually by adding master’s level professional degree programs, then changing their names to enhance their status.
Two single critical case studies about the pursuit of prestige or “striving” provide further evidence of some of the prestige-seeking strategies and add depth to the evidence about strategies for increasing the amount of research conducted to achieve a higher status or greater prestige. O’Meara and Bloomgarden (2011) studied a top regional liberal arts colleges that was striving to become a top national liberal arts college and Gonzalez
(2013) studied a regionally-oriented teaching university that was striving to become a national research university. O’Meara and Bloomgarden (2011) provided a faculty perspective on prestige seeking. They identified as indicators of striving greater selectivity, higher student SAT and ACT scores, the hiring of more research-oriented faculty, and an increased expectation of research in promotion and tenure decisions. Their base hypothesis was that faculty would welcome less teaching, more time for research, and greater student selectivity. Feedback from the faculty whom they interviewed showed a high awareness of the names of aspirational peers and comparisons with them. The Price of Prestige 67 Gonzales (2013) studied a Hispanic-serving public regional university that called itself
“Harvard on the Border,” that was attempting to become a “Research 1” university, and focused on the pressure to increase research activity with a concomitant reduction in service activities, revised criteria for promotion and tenure, and the beginnings of a change towards some selectivity in admissions and away from the university’s traditional policy of open access complimented by an array of services to help students who needed extra attention to succeed.
Other studies at the undergraduate level share a focus on admissions selectivity.
Colleges that have decided to make the reporting of SAT scores optional in the admissions process have benefitted because only those applicants with high scores report them (increased the average reported score), while those with low scores apply in hopes of acceptance, increasing the denominator of the selectivity calculation. A major strategy not included in the final model of Volkwein and Sweitzer (2006) was the use of financial aid for merit purposes rather than need to attract students with higher SAT scores. In his prestige-maximizing model, Doyle (2010) showed that private, 4-year, nondoctoral institutions provide more than twice as much institutional aid to students whose SAT scores are in the top quintile, compared to the bottom quintile. Doyle also found that students whose parents are in the highest quintile for income get more dollars of aid than do students in the lowest income quintile. McPherson and Shapiro (1994) also concluded that using merit aid to increase student quality and improve institutional reputation is a prevalent strategy, particularly among “lesser” institutions. They showed that nonneed- based aid as a percent of total aid increased much faster between 1983–1984 and 1991–
1992 at private doctoral universities than at private research universities. The Price of Prestige 68 Ehrenberg (2003) analyzed how USNWR rankings shape institutional behavior by reviewing strategies that could affect each of the major criteria in that index. Selectivity was one of several factors, including academic reputation, faculty resources, graduation and retention rates, financial resources, alumni giving, and graduation rate performance.
Ehrenberg (2003) also cited examples of behaviors that institutions have contemplated or enacted to improve their position in the rankings, including increasing faculty salary to show greater expenditure per student, but with no improvement in academic outcomes specified. Volkwein and Sweitzer, (2006) provided a model that predicted the academic reputation element of the USNWR index as a function of structural characteristics (the same variables as Labianca et al. (2001): size, control, religious affiliation), faculty resources and faculty outcomes, and student resources and student outcomes. In essence, other than by introducing the structural characteristics and a measure of faculty research output, Volkwein and Sweitzer (2006) were actually showing a high degree of correlation between the variable academic reputation and the other components of the USNWR ranking index.
Scholars have studied how universities compete for prestige in single-issue studies and overall assessments of strategy. Researchers have found a dominant logic or industry recipe regarding seeking to improve the focal institution’s competitive position vis-à-vis a more prestigious university or to move to a more prestigious category. Prestige seeking has become a significant element of decision makers’ mental maps.
Decision makers’ Mental Maps in Connection With Tuition Increase
. Proposition 3: Managers’ strategic mindsets about membership of a cognitive
strategic group and legitimate competitive behaviors frame decisions,
including decisions about tuition increases. The Price of Prestige 69 Studies of higher education have more frequently taken the perspective of institutional theory than of managerial cognition or the decision maker’s mindset.
However, some scholars have conducted empirical research about strategy formulation, including scanning, sense making of the environment, and decision making.
Toma (2012) was one of a small number of researchers who described the senior administrator strategic mindset. Toma interviewed 38 presidents of higher education colleges in the Atlanta area in early 2008. First, with respect to institutional strategic objectives or aspirations, and echoing Kerr (1991), he reported that institutions know that a “next level” exists (usually shorthanded by reference to the USNWR rankings) and how to get there. For example, Toma reported that Emory University had as a goal to stay in the top 15 private research universities because of the perceived importance of this status in attracting students, faculty, and resources; Davidson College wanted to maintain its top
10 national rank; Agnes Scott College and Spelman College both wanted to stay in the top 75. Toma also observed that benchmarking peers and aspirational competitors, as an input into strategy formulation, tend to increase institutional focus on measures associated with prestige. Morphew (2009), examining the change in institutional diversity through the lens of institutional theory, provided four examples of a public university with publicly announced goals of attaining a higher level of Carnegie Classification:
Florida International University wanted to become research intensive; the University of
Texas at San Antonio wanted to become first research intensive then research extensive; the University of Nevada–Las Vegas also wanted to become research extensive; and
North Dakota State University wanted to become doctoral granting.
Another example of prestige seeking came from Gioia and Thomas’ (1996) classic study of sense making in a public university that was undergoing a transformation The Price of Prestige 70 in both image and identity. In this university, the phrase “top-10” was used by several executives as a shorthand description of the goal, future image, and identity of the university. One quotation featured the university president using the phrase: “Prepare them (the Board) for thinking of this place as a top-10” (p. 378). A quotation from a vice president described any issue in “our drive for prestige in becoming a top-10 place” as a strategic issue (p. 378), thus, also placing the goal of top-10 and prestige seeking on decision makers strategic mental maps. Subsequently Gioia and Corley (2002) interviewed 42 business school leaders at 16 universities about the challenge of managing both substance and the measures of image promoted by rankings from, in the case of business schools, Business Week.
Also with business school leaders, Martins (2005) explored when changes in rankings would promote organizational changes and what kinds of changes they would promulgate. The Martins (2005) study used both Business Week and USNWR rankings of business schools. The data that Martins (2005) collected through several surveys supported the conclusion that changes are more likely to take place when the internal image that leaders hold of their organization is discrepant with the image as assessed by outsiders—the rankings. Change is more likely if the leaders perceive the discrepancy to have a major strategic impact or in organizations with greater external orientation.
Martins (2005) constructed an index of a variety of major, medium, and minor changes as the dependent variable. Major changes included building new buildings or refurbishing old ones, initiating major program changes, and making major personnel changes such as hiring a new school dean or program director. Medium changes included changing admissions selectivity, increasing marketing expenditure, reducing class sizes, or increasing career services resources to increase graduates’ starting salaries. The long list The Price of Prestige 71 of small change items included focus on alumni relations and more attention to benchmarking.
The number of studies of decision making that are focused on strategy and strategic issues is directionally consistent, identifying the same strategies as the earlier studies of competitive responses to enhance prestige.
Summary of Literature about Prestige Seeking and Prestige Seeking Strategies by Universities
Table 1 displays a summary of the findings from empirical studies in peer- reviewed journals. The findings are organized according to the research question or one of the literature propositions.
Table 1
Summary of Reported Scholarly Research About Prestige Seeking Strategies by Universities
Question or proposition Authors Findings
Prestige and price Monks and Changes in rank are linearly related to changes in admissions Ehrenberg selectivity and average SAT scores of incoming freshmen; a (1999) change in rank has no impact on published tuition rate one year later. A less favorable rank prompts institutions to increase the amount of financial aid they provide.
Rindova et al. Prominence—the favorable evaluation of an organization by (2005) an expert third party—contributes to a price premium.
Bastedo & Among some groups of colleges, tuition appears to serve as Bowman an indicator of prestige: an above average increase in tuition (2011) led to improved admissions selectivity scores.
Garvin (1980) Changes in prestige are related to changes in the numbers of faculty and faculty salaries that are enabled by higher tuition and higher tuition income. Prestige as organizational goal McGuire, Reputation is specified as the output of the university Richman, research process. Program breadth contributes more to Daly, & increase in prestige than peaks of excellence. Changing a The Price of Prestige 72
Question or proposition Authors Findings Jorjani (1988) reputation is a slow and expensive process.
James (1990) Specifies, but does to test, a model of prestige maximization with independent variables: number and quality of undergraduates, number and quality of graduates, amount of research, and class size and teaching loads.
Labianca et al. Decision makers choose to emulate others that are similar not (2001), merely in structural characteristics, but also in identity; Labianca et al. decision makers compare themselves to external referent (2009) organizations that they would like to emulate, and initiate changes to become more like them.
Conrad & Ostensibly in the name of improving quality, but in actuality Eagan (1989) improving prestige, organizations enact behaviors such as tightening admissions standards, recruiting highly visible faculty, expanding graduate and professional degree programs, building endowments, raising tuition, and increasing expenditures on image management. Imitation of prestige seeking behaviors Brewer, The three major prestige-generating strategies are Gates, & (a) improving student quality through merit aid, higher test Goldman scores, and greater selectivity; (b) greater research and (2002) research visibility through winning more grants, building labs, and recruiting faculty with research records; and (c) enhanced sports competitiveness, including player scholarships, investment in sporting facilities, highly paid coaches, and moving to more competitive divisions.
Toma (2008), Important strategies include attracting notable faculty, Toma (2012) renovating buildings and infrastructure, and upgrading to higher athletic division. Enrollment strategy is central to positioning for prestige.
Toma (2012) Organizations enact legitimacy and prestige-enhancing strategies, including recruiting faculty or researchers who can win awards, and using financial aid to attract more accomplished students (reference aspirational institutions in Managers’ fund raising, and adding athletics programs). mindsets Gioia & A prime role for leaders of strategic change is to frame the Thomas change in aspirational terms (such as becoming a prestigious (1996) top 10 university). The Price of Prestige 73
Question or proposition Authors Findings
Martins Organizations compare their identities (who we are today) to (2005) desired images (who we want to be) and change towards to the desired image. The stronger the external orientation of the institution’s image the greater the impetus to change. Considerations of the strategic impact of rankings weigh heavily in organizational decision making. Major changes included building renovation projects and program modifications.
Only two empirical studies were located that evaluated a direct relationship between tuition and prestige, and their findings were contradictory. Monks and
Ehrenberg (1999) found no relationship between change in rank and tuition 1 year later.
Bastedo and Bowman (2011) found that, among some groups of colleges, an increase in tuition was correlated with an increase in selectivity in a following period. The data that
Monks and Ehrenberg (1999) analyzed pertained to the top 30 private national or liberal arts colleges. The data set of Bastedo and Bowman (2011) pertained to a large number of national universities and liberal arts colleges—58 of each—that appeared on the front page of the USNWR rankings between 1997 and 2004. Monks and Ehrenberg (1999) specified tuition as a dependent variable that would change consequent to a change in rank; Bastedo and Bowman (2011) posited tuition to be an independent variable, a change in which would result in a change in rank. In the third study, Rindova et al. (2005) tested an indirect relationship in which “price” was operationalized as program graduates’ compensations.
The findings from the small number of studies that directly relate price to prestige were contradictory. The studies that addressed prestige seeking, prestige seeking and quality, or one of the three propositions from the literature collectively identified a set of The Price of Prestige 74 prestige-seeking strategies that could be termed the dominant logic or industry recipe for private nonprofit higher education. These strategies make up the collective “mindset” or mental map of decision makers collectively. Table 2 lists the strategies and behaviors that were extracted from those scholars’ studies and that they observed to be employed by prestige-seeking organizations. The Price of Prestige 75 Table 2
Prestige Seeking Strategies and Behaviors of Universities Abstracted From Scholarly Literature
Group Description
Student quality Admissions selectivity; tightening admissions standards and becoming more selective; the use of merit scholarships in support of selectivity; going SAT optional; greater emphasis on merit aid (Brewer et al., 2002; Bastedo & Bowman, 2011; Conrad & Eagan, 1989; James, 1990; Monks & Ehrenberg,1999).
Sports Enhancing institutional image through athletics, moving athletics programs to better conferences (Brewer et al., 2002; Toma, 2008, 2012).
Faculty and research The recruitment of faculty with strong research records or success in winning federal grants; recruiting star faculty, faculty salary without a specified academic outcome; increasing funding for research through business partnerships or federal grants; increased weight of research in tenure decisions, less faculty time teaching; reduction in service activities (Brewer et al., 2002; Conrad & Eagan, 1989; Garvin, 1980; James, 1990; McGuire et al., 1988; Toma, 2008, 2012).
Buildings and physical Investment in upgrading labs, academics buildings, and athletic facilities facilities (Martins, 2005; Toma, 2008).
Alumni giving, growth of Goals or realization of increased alumni giving and alumni endowment participation in giving (Conrad & Eagan, 1989, Toma, 2012).
Additional schools; Adding masters and professional degrees (Conrad & Eagan, 1989; breadth of program Martins, 2005; McGuire et al., 1988). offerings
The question that remains to be researched is whether a relationship exists between the mental map of prestige-seeking strategies and decisions to increase tuition.
In Chapter 3, the researcher describes the research methodology selected to address this question and how the methodology was enacted for this research project. The Price of Prestige 76 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of Chapter 1 was to describe the context of the problem, to present the problem statement and to establish the overarching question for this study, which asks whether a relationship exists between prestige seeking and decisions at private nonprofit colleges and universities. The specific research question is:
. Can evidence show that prestige seeking is a part of decision makers’ mental
maps when making tuition increase decisions?
In Chapter 2, the researcher surveyed the theoretical literature from the economics and management disciplines and identified three propositions that relate the imitation of prestige seeking behaviors by colleges and universities to tuition through managerial cognition and developed a theoretical framework that could be explored through data collection and analysis.
Private non-profit higher education institutions seek to maximize their prestige, which signals higher quality and enables them to increase revenue. [Proposition 1]
In the field of higher education, organizations seeking legitimacy imitate the strategies of organizations they perceive as more prestigious (aspirational peers). [Proposition 2]
Managers’ strategic mindsets about membership of a cognitive strategic group and legitimate competitive behaviors frame decisions, such as decisions about tuition increases. [Proposition 3]
In the second half of Chapter 2, the researcher discussed other scholars’ studies of colleges and universities exploring the phenomena of prestige seeking, its influence of strategic decisions, and typical strategies enacted in efforts to increase legitimacy and prestige. The section concluded by tabulating some commonly employed prestige seeking strategies extracted from those studies (see Table 2). To obtain the data needed to answer The Price of Prestige 77 the research question, about the mindsets of decision makers, the researcher selected the methodology of content analysis.
This chapter first discusses the selection of a research methodology for this study.
Content analysis is a research methodology broadly used in the social sciences.
Management scholars have also used it, especially to study managerial cognition, which sets up the rationale for its selection and use in this study. The main body of the chapter describes the procedure for conducting content analysis in general and the specifics of the process in this study. Lastly, the research and the research process for this study benefited from feedback from a group of expert stakeholders comprised of three practitioners
(decision makers at private nonprofit universities) and one scholar practitioner. In the final section of this chapter, the researcher describes the role of the expert stakeholders, its membership, and how panel members’ feedback has been taken into account in this study.
Management Research Methodologies
Management is an applied discipline. In unequal parts it assembles its theories from the major social science disciplines—economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and even political science. As noted by Devinney and Siegal (2012) management theories are notoriously hard to test because of their complexity, and, because they are tested in unique contexts, the results are rarely replicable. Choices among research methods tend to be categorized as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. First, quantitative methods require the specification of the variables in a proposed relationship, the identification of sources of data or the creation of data through, for example, survey instruments; the analysis and summarization of results, using statistical methods; and the evaluation of the generalizability of results where possible, The Price of Prestige 78 using methods of statistical inference. Oversimplifying, quantitative methods are associated with a positivist worldview where reality is observable (Creswell, 2009); they are best suited to test a theory, a described set of relationships, rather than to explore a set of relationships, or to ground the development of theory in that exploratory process. With the appropriate statistical tests and standards, the results of quantitative methods are generalizable from a sample to a population.
By the presence of a member of the research team in the research setting, the qualitative method of inquiry is situated in an axiology that reflects the values of the researcher. This is complemented ontologically by a focus on the meaning of the issue to research subjects and epistemologically by data gathering about the dimensions of the context of the situation under study. Mixed methods use the strengths of both approaches
(Creswell, 2009). The findings from qualitative and mixed methods studies cannot be generalized using statistical inference. The ability to account for context explicitly and the comprehension of social interaction, subjective meanings, and complexity are strengths of these social constructivist methods that make this research nearly as essential as quantitative methods.
Content Analysis
Weber (1990) defined content analysis as “a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text” such as written communications (p. 9).
Content analysis grew out of an interest by anthropologists to study societal myths and folktales, by historians to analyze document content (Krippendorff, 2004), and by social psychologists to examine the content of communications in areas such as crisis management (e.g., spousal abuse). Content analysis can be qualitative or quantitative (Elo
& Kyngäs, 2007; Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999,). In fact, content analysis is a The Price of Prestige 79 curious amalgam of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Zhang & Wildemuth,
2009). Although Saldaña (2011) described content analysis as a qualitative methodology, others have assessed that it resides at the intersection of qualitative and quantitative methods (Duriau, Reger, & Pfarrer, 2007). Quantitatively, word or theme frequency is a measure of cognitive centrality while co-occurrence of words or themes is interpreted as having meaning, reflecting an association between them. Content analysis has potentially three purposes: (a) to describe the characteristics of the content of a communication,
(b) to make inferences about the causes of the content, or (c) to make inferences about the effect of the content. Thus, inferences might be about the sender of the message or about the audience for the message. With content analysis, the research question is answered with inference because the researcher is unable to directly observe the phenomena in which they are interested (Krippendorff, 2004). Krippendorff (2004) drew an analogy between abductive inference in content analysis (abductive because the phenomenon cannot be observed directly) and the theory of argumentation by Toulmin (1958). As the diagram below shows, in argumentation, the move from data to an inferred claim or conclusion must be justified by a warrant that has some backing. In content analysis, the text is the data. The inferred claim is the probably answer to the research question. The warrant in the argument made by content analysis is that an analytical construct or process has applied. According to Krippendorff (2004), the analyst or researcher provides the backing concerning the stability of the context of the data based on knowledge, theory, or experience of the context. The Price of Prestige 80
Figure 2. Relationship of content analysis to Toulmin’s theory of argumentation. From Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.)., by K. Krippendorff, 2004, Sage, London, UK,. p. 38. Adapted with permission.
Content Analysis in Management Research
In research about management issues, scholars have used content analysis to analyze the evolution of the strategic management field as presented in academic journals
(Furrer, Thomas, & Goussevskaia, 2008), and to evaluate a diversity of issues such as organizational values (Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995), management attentional homogeneity (Abrahamson & Hambrick, 1997), where top managers focus their attention
(D’Aveni & MacMillan, 1990), conflicts between American and Chinese managers in
China (Doucet & Jehn, 1997), and strategic flexibility (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). To illustrate, D’Aveni and Macmillan (1990) conducted an exploratory study of the content of managerial communications during a period of crisis and demand decline to determine whether the managers of organizations that survived the downturn had different attention patterns regarding their internal and external environments rather than their counterparts in failing firms. D’Aveni and MacMillan used a sample of 114 organizations of half of which had failed and gone bankrupt, while the other half had survived. Letters to The Price of Prestige 81 shareholders were the source of data about the loci of management attention. D’Aveni and MacMillan showed that when a crisis hits, managers of surviving firms pay more attention to their external environment than do managers of failing firms who continue to focus on their internal environments. Likewise, managers of failing firms emphasized the improved use of input resources and efficiency, while the managers of surviving organizations paid more attention to customer needs in the output environment.
Management researchers have employed content analysis frequently to study managerial and organizational cognition, and to study issues of strategy (Duriau et al.,
2007). Longitudinal studies such as Barr et al. (1992), Osborne et al. (2001), and Kaplan et al. (2003) have employed content analysis of publicly available published documents to show a causal link between cognition and strategic outcomes (Kaplan, 2011). For example, Barr et al. (1992) used letters to shareholders at two railroad companies over a
25-year period to identify the mental maps of each group of organizational leaders, and how the contents diverged. One organization’s leaders were successful in changing the mental map for their organization, and in implementing plans to reduce cost and increase productivity, while the other remained focused on industry level phenomena and the then-prevailing industry recipe. In contrast to the D’Aveni and MacMillan (1990) study,
Barr et al. (1992) showed that, although both firms recognized environmental changes, only one demonstrated a shift in thinking and revitalization of this mental map. At the conclusion of the study, one of the two firms had survived while the other went bankrupt.
Barr et al. inferred that inability to update mental maps contributed to the demise of the second organization.
As a second example of the use of content analysis to examine managers’ mental maps of their external environment, Kaplan et al. (2003) took a more quantitative The Price of Prestige 82 approach to measuring the extent to which pharmaceuticals firms responded to the biotechnology threat, using word counts of biotechnology-related terms from the pharmaceutical company annual reports as evidence of the recognition of biotech in top manager mental models. Kaplan et al. (2003) supplemented their quantitative content analysis with qualitative results, using exemplars. They found substantial variations in firm response. Bristol Myers was one of the earliest pharmaceutical companies to recognize and incorporate biotechnology into its cancer research. Merck managers were focused more on an array of scientific approaches and saw biotechnology more as part of a continuum than a disruption. Content analysis enabled the study, in a consistent fashion and without introducing retrospective bias, of changing managerial cognition, over time and across companies, .
Although content analysis is used across the social sciences, in management it has appeared most often as a research methodology in connection with topics in common with this study—strategy and managerial and organizational cognition (Duriau et al.,
2007), cognitive strategic groups (Kabanoff & Brown, 2008; Osborne et al., 2001), competitive inertia (Miller & Chen, 1994), homogeneity of managerial cognition in different industries (Abrahamson & Hambrick, 1997), and the relationship of managerial beliefs to strategic decisions (Stimpert & Duhaime, 2008). Content analysis enables the qualitative or quantitative reduction of a large amount of text to a small number of patterns or concepts that can be transformed in to a map, analogous to a physical map, showing relationships between concepts, and the direction of one concept’s influence on another.
Content analysis is one of several techniques that researchers used to develop cognitive maps (Erdener & Dunn, 1990). The map below depicts the mental map of the The Price of Prestige 83 structure of categories of organizations communicated by the managing director of a high-quality, fully fashioned, knitwear manufacturer in Scotland.
Figure 3. Elicited cognitive taxonomy of a managing director of a Scottish knitwear firm. From “Taxonomic Mental Models in Competitor Definition” by J. Porac and H. Thomas, 1990, Academy of Management Review, 15, p. 229. Copyright 1990 by the Academy of Management.
The sources of data used by the studies of managerial cognition cited above include CEO letters in annual reports (Abrahamson & Hambrick, 1997; Kabanoff &
Brown, 2008; Osborne et al., 2001), trade magazines (Miller & Chen, 1994), and proxy statements. In their directions for future research, Duriau et al. (2007) recommended that researchers also expand their selections of the types of documents analyzed to include data from websites such as press releases and president speeches.
The ability of content analysis to investigate communicator intentions, to make inferences about the effect of the content and to elicit the focus of a group’s attention strongly suggested that it would be an appropriate methodology for this study. The use of The Price of Prestige 84 content analysis by other scholars for cognitive mapping (Carley & Palmquist, 1992;
Huff, 1990) enhanced the appropriateness of the selection of content analysis for this study. Among the advantages of content analysis for mapping strategic thought, Erdener and Dunn (1990) pointed out that, when used deductively as it is in this study, objective criteria could be employed in the interpretation of text-based material. Content analysis is useful because it is unobtrusive and does not involve the researcher presence as an observer. This removes the threat to validity of observer bias and the threat that the act of measurement itself will provoke change (Weber, 1990). When access to senior decision makers is limited to researchers, as it was in the case of this study only to the expert stakeholders, analysis of texts or communications from senior executives can supplement or substitute for direct observation (Duriau et al., 2007; Erdener & Dunn, 1990). From this position, the researcher selected content analysis as the primary research methodology for this study.
Types of Content Analysis
Among its many uses, researchers have employed content analysis to identify the characteristics and intentions of the communicator and to reveal the focus of attention of an individual, group, or organization (Weber, 1990). When addressing, for example, a subject such as intentions, content analysis could be limited to the manifest content, or it could be extended to the latent content of a communication. The latent content is the communication’s symbolic meaning. Krippendorff (2004) discussed three kinds of content analysis: where the content is contained in the text, where the content emerges from the process of analyzing a text, and where the content is a property of the source of the text. In this study, the researcher employs the third approach: that is, where content The Price of Prestige 85 analysis makes inferences about a property, the mental maps, of the decision-makers at the events for which minutes were recorded.
Content analysis is both a process and research methodology, and an analytical technique. Researchers who use content analysis to code interview notes from qualitative studies, for example, are using content analysis as an analytical technique. When used as a research process, the results can be scrutinized for reliability and validity (Krippendorff,
1980). The conduct of quantitative and qualitative content analysis follows similar but not identical processes.
Quantitative content analysis is most apt where the research question can be answered by inspection and quantification of the manifest content of communications.
The most commonly encountered analytical method in quantitative content analysis is a word frequency count (Stemler, 2001). Counting the frequency of occurrence of a word requires the establishment of a list of synonyms. Synonyms differ in distance from the meaning of the original word, which affects the semantic validity of the study. As an example, synonyms for “similar” might include “matching” and “alike,” as well as
“resembling” or “analogous.” Although psychosocial researchers can use categories in dictionaries such as the Harvard IV dictionary, similar resources might not be easily identifiable to management researchers (Weber, 1990). An additional complication for researchers when making decisions about their research methodology and process, software packages (qualitative data analysis packages or content analysis packages) vary in their sophistication and ability to identify, tag, or categorize text in a specific context relevant to the study’s framework.
Qualitative content analysis can be used inductively or deductively (Elo &
Kyngäs, 2007). Used inductively, qualitative content analysis tends to start from a The Price of Prestige 86 nontheoretical premise. In the research process a researcher moves from coding the data, then grouping it into categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Used deductively, an approach that Hsieh and Shannon (2005) label directed content analysis, existing theory is used to help focus the research question, and establish the initial coding scheme by providing predictions about variable of interest. The primary difference between the two methods then is in how the coding scheme is established. This research project employs qualitative content analysis following the directed model of Hsieh and Shannon (2005).
Reliability and Validity of Content Analysis
Content analysis is both a quantitative, and a qualitative research methodology; therefore, the reliability and validity of content analysis can be discussed from a positivist and an interpretivist paradigm. In general, not specific to content analysis, in the positivist paradigm reliability is a function of replicability, representing consistency over time (Golafshani, 2003). Validity has two dimensions: external validity refers to generalizability of findings, and internal validity refers to whether the independent variables are truly responsible for the variation observed in the dependent variable.
Interpretivists prefer words such as trustworthiness, rigor, quality, and consistency, with triangulation or convergence from multiple different sources as a way to enhance researcher truthfulness (Golafshani, 2003).
In content analysis, qualitative or quantitative, reliability is a function of the reproducibility of results (Krippendorff, 1980). Reliability has three dimensions: stability over time, reproducibility because of sufficiently detailed coding instructions, and accuracy of coding. In other words, the audit trail of the process is critical for ensuring reliability of results (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Validity is more of a challenge because content analysis involves meanings, contexts, contextual dependencies, and sometimes The Price of Prestige 87 the interpretation of symbolic data (Krippendorff, 1980). In addition, the purpose of content analysis is to infer that for which validating evidence is not directly observable
(Krippendorff, 1989). Krippendorff (1980) broke validity for content analysis into three components: data oriented validity, pragmatic validity, and construct validity. Data oriented validity is more important for studies which address the meaning or latent content of a communication. Pragmatic validity addresses how well the method works by reference to, for example, other studies and their measures of the same phenomenon.
Construct validity derives from the validity of the underlying theory. For studies of manifest content, construct validity is the most important. Having experts validate the coding scheme or category matrix which represents underlying theory enhances study validity (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999) as does having multiple coders and rules for resolving coder disagreement.
In the next section of this report, the researcher describes how a content analysis should be designed for reliability and validity or for quality, credibility, and trustworthiness. The concluding step in the process considers validation of findings.
Process of Content Analysis
A typical content analysis follows a six-step process: (a) design, (b) unitize,
(c) establish coding scheme, (d) code, (e) draw inferences, and (f ) validate
(Krippendorff, 1989). In the next section, the researcher defines these steps in a generic content analysis process. The procedure for deductive content analysis, such as directed content analysis, differs slightly in Steps 3 and 4. In the concluding part of this section, the researcher describes the specifics of the content analysis process for this study. The Price of Prestige 88 Generic Content Analysis Procedure: Definition of Steps
Step 1: Design. In the design phase of the research project, the researcher determines the research question and the context. Content analysis is usually employed when the subject of the research question is unobservable directly so that the researcher must explain why this is the case. The researcher documents the reason for the selection of the sample to be analyzed (for example, a specific group of universities in this study).
Also in the design phase, the researcher investigates and decides what kinds of documents are available to be analyzed, how they will be identified, and where those documents are located. Decisions must also be made about what documents are included and what documents are excluded. If the content to be analyzed is interview notes (not the case in this study), the researcher must ensure that the notes have been consistently transcribed from the raw data. The researcher must select the most fitting approach to content analysis—quantitative or qualitative, inductive or deductive, and manifest content or latent content.
Step 2: Unitize. In this step, the researcher decides the unit of analysis for the study. In content analysis, the unit can be the word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or document. Qualitative content analysis and directed content analysis may use themes as the unit of analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Zhang & Wildmuth, 2009) where a theme is a group of words—a phrase, sentence, or paragraph. Technically a document should be broken into units before coding begins. In practice, if the unit is a word, the computer software analysis package will carry out this task. The selection of the unit of analysis affects the coding scheme, described in Step 3.
Step 3: Establish coding scheme. This step involves the establishment of a categorization matrix and the operational definition of each category (Hsieh & Shannon, The Price of Prestige 89 2005; Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). In inductive content analysis, the development of a coding scheme refers to how the units of analysis will be assigned to categories or subcategories.
For inductive studies, the categorization schema is established through inspection of a subset of the content and a trial and error process. For deductive studies, it is established from the analysis of previous studies or through a theoretical framework (Zhang &
Wildemuth, 2009). The output of the establishment of a coding or categorization scheme is a set of instructions that a coding team, if one is employed, can use consistently.
Step 4: Code. Coding is the step of classifying units according to the categorization scheme established in the previous step (Krippendorff, 1989). Once the coding scheme has been fully defined and documented, coding can occur in one of two patterns: (a) the researcher can identify and categorize all instances of a particular phenomenon, or (b) a whole document can be coded, first according to the predefined categories and then the researcher can examine un-coded data in a document to determine whether additional categories should be established, iteratively returning to the previous step (Hsieh & Shannnon, 2005). This step includes checking the consistency of the coding scheme.
Step 5: Draw inference. Inference or drawing conclusions is challenging with content analysis (Krippendorff, 1989) and rarely obvious. At this stage, the researcher must select a method or analytical process for drawing inference. In quantitative content analysis, the most commonly used analytical approach is a simple, single-word frequency count (Weber, 1990). However, even drawing inference from word counts is disputed.
Some researchers might infer that the greater the frequency, the greater the attention being paid to a word, concept, or category. Other researchers have proposed that the first mention of the phenomenon under study is the most important because it might take the The Price of Prestige 90 most effort. Researchers should be aware of understated and overstated words especially when analyzing news sources where drama is used to attract attention (example: a drop in the stock market has become a plummet) and content that merely reveals a preoccupation with one phenomenon such as conflict, over another, such as cooperation (Weber, 1990).
In quantitative content analysis, the researcher can use the power of statistics inference to generalize from the specific. In a relational study, concepts are meaningful only in relation to one another and that relationship can be measured by proximity or demonstrated through a map or network (Carley, 1990). Hsieh and Shannon (2005) suggested using exemplars as descriptive evidence of the inference.
Step 6: Validate. In this chapter, the researcher presented an overview of reliability and validity earlier. Scholars such as Potter and Levine-Donnerstein (1999) focused on the validity of the coding scheme and the accuracy with which coders adhered to the scheme. Validation and validity are conceptually different.
Validation is the final step in the content analysis process and one for which there is no definition. Krippendorff (2004) advised that content analysis must have the possibility of validation in principle through other evidence although it might not be feasible to validate in practice. Krippendorff (2004) provided the example of inferring from his communications how President Kennedy’s attitude changed during the Cuban
Missile crisis, as an event that could have been validated if President Kennedy had been interviewed about this event during his life. Such validating evidence, however, died with him.
Triangulation, by data type, data source, or method, would establish additional independent measures of a phenomenon (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Validation would be established if the results of such studies agreed with the original study. The Price of Prestige 91 Modified Procedure for Deductive Content Analysis Such as Directed Content
Analysis
The primary difference between the process for inductive content analysis and the process for deductive content analysis occurs in Step 3, the establishment of the coding scheme, as shown in Table 3. In Step 3 of the Krippendorff (1989) process, the establishment of a categorization scheme for studies electing an inductive approach is accomplished iteratively through inspection of the coded data, whereas in studies electing a deductive approach, the categories and the coding dictionary can be established from theory or from other studies. In both cases, as Step 4 describes, the categories can be revised as coding progresses. If so, the researcher would document how the revised structure emerged. The table below elaborates on the generic process proposed by
Krippendorf (1989), showing how the process for deductive content analysis differs from the inductive approach (Mayring, 2000; Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009)
Table 3
Comparison of Process for Inductive and Deductive Content Analysis
Krippendorff step Inductive content analysis (Deductive) directed content analysis
1. Design Research question formulation, Same research design decisions, description of sampling procedure, identification of sources of data, selection of unit of analysis, preparation of data.
2. Unitize Determination of category definition. Theoretically-based definition of aspects of analysis, main categories, subcategories.
3. Establish Step by step formulation and Theoretical based formulation of coding scheme definition of inductive categories. definitions, and coding rules for categories. The Price of Prestige 92
Krippendorff step Inductive content analysis (Deductive) directed content analysis
4. Code Testing of the coding scheme with a Coding of the data in accordance with portion of the data, revision of the coding rules, revision of categories categories and formative check of and formative check of reliability. reliability.
Completion of coding to categories – Completion of coding to categories – final working through texts and final working through texts and summative check of reliability. summative check of reliability
5. Draw Interpretation of results, report of Same inferences methods and findings.
6. Validate Determine what is available to validate Same
Content Analysis Process in This Research
This section explains how the deductive content analysis was executed in the current study.
Step 1: Design. The research question, defined in Chapter 1 of this study, asks whether evidence can demonstrate that prestige seeking is a part of decision makers’ mental maps when making tuition decisions. The researcher selected the qualitative methodology of directed content analysis to answer the research question. The research question dictated a research design that restricted the evidence gathered to communications by decision makers that contained both a reference to a decision to increase tuition and a reference to prestige seeking or a prestige seeking strategy. The key assumption that the researcher makes in this content analysis, and this study generally, is that a relationship between the concepts can be inferred from their copresence.
The research question established that the sample for the study would be drawn from among the 1,682 private nonprofit universities in the United States. The sample The Price of Prestige 93 selected consisted of the 85 private nonprofit universities in the 2013 USNWR top 200
(Appendix B). The primary reason for selecting this sample was that researchers had used it in other studies that were cited in Chapter 2 (e.g., Bastedo & Bowman, 2010; Bastedo
& Bowman, 2011; Ehrenberg, 2003; Meredith, 2004; Winston, 1999). Additionally, using a predefined list eliminated the potential for researcher bias in the selection of subject universities to study. The geographic scope of the USNWR list is diverse, as is university size (measured by number of undergraduate students enrolled), and the number of years of continuous operation. Only one university, the Polytechnic Institute of New York
University had to be dropped from the analysis because it was no longer an independent entity.
To source the data for the content analysis, the researcher visited the websites of the universities in the sample between October 1 and December 31, 2013. At each website, the researcher entered the phrase “tuition increase” into the website’s search bar specifying this as a phrase and using quotations marks. In some cases, the researcher also had the option to request and to specify that results be displayed without duplicates.
Figure 4 displays an example of the typical results returned for this search. The top section of the screen shot displays first the phrase entered into the search box then below it, the number of results returned, followed by an itemized list. The summary also shows that this website is powered by “custom search.” Several within-site searches were powered by the Google search engine.
The search results typically included a summary of the number of documents containing the search term. The number of hits ranged from zero to thousands. Other websites searched returned a short list of document titles and links to the complete content. The Price of Prestige 94
Figure 4. Results of search on website of Southern Methodist University.
Document types that were turned up with this search strategy included (a) press releases, (b) minutes of faculty meetings or subcommittee meetings, (c) student or local newspaper articles reporting tuition increase announcements, (d) presidents’ speeches at events such as convocation, (e) reports such as annual reports and institutional research factbooks, (f) letters to groups of stakeholders such as students and parents, and
(g) strategic plans. Most content analyses use a singular type of document, such as an annual report. This study included all types of documents published on university websites that reported or communicated a tuition increase decision. The researcher did not include documents published on third-party organizational websites that commented on a specific university’s tuition increase. The length of the documents included in the study varied considerably, as did the distance between the reference to “tuition increase” and the prestige seeking strategy. Although some documents such as press releases were The Price of Prestige 95 relative short, others such as annual reports and convocation speeches or state of the university speeches, extended to multiple pages.
The items retrieved by the simple search were inspected for relevance of content.
The criteria for excluding documents from the content analysis were developed iteratively and with increasing rigor. Both qualitative and quantitative content analysis is often an iterative process (Elo & Kyngäss, 2007). Table 4 displays those criteria for excluding certain documents. Criteria generally refer to the context of the reference to
“tuition increase.” For example, a document that addressed the tuition increase only for a graduate or professional school such as a law school could be excluded quickly, often from the title, the subject line in the search results, or the Uniform Resource Locator
(URL). The same was true of references in employee handbooks.
Table 4
Criteria for Excluding Documents From Content Analysis
Exclusion criteria
Financial Aid Dept./Cost of attendance budgets
Tuition increases only for graduate programs or professional schools such as Law etc.
Policy and regulations ; tuition policies such as fixed tuition
Parent handbook
Employee handbook
Tuition as an employee benefit
Annual reports (Scanned for commentary)
Multiple versions of same or similar document such as an annual press releases The Price of Prestige 96
Documents published prior to 1990
Graduate school strategic plans,
Departmental documents such as strategic plans or reports on strategic objectives
Impact of endowment performance
Scholarly papers or articles
Biographies, CV s or Resumes
Faculty research reports/publications Course Descriptions
The researcher searched the websites of all 85 private nonprofit colleges in the
2013 USNWR top 200. For 30 universities, the search located no documents with the key words “tuition increase.” Catholic University of America and Clark University are examples of universities from which no documents were located. For the current study, the researcher was only interested in associations with the phrase “tuition increase”; therefore, the sample analyzed was 63.9% of the original number selected. For universities with multiple documents of the same type such as press release with different dates, but containing substantially similar wording, only the most recent document was retrieved for analysis. Most of the retrieved documents have dates of 2001 or later.
Step 2: Unitize. In accordance with the study design of directed qualitative content analysis, the unit of analysis selected for this study is a theme. The next section discusses the identification and selection of the themes. Documents were scanned for the contexts of the phrase “tuition increase” and for content potentially related to the themes in the category matrix of prestige seeking strategies as summarized in Table 2 at the end of Chapter 2. The Price of Prestige 97 For this content analysis, the context of a reference to tuition increase affected whether the data were appropriate for coding. For example, the word “increase” could occurin the context of increase in tuition, but could also occur in the context of an increase in number of students, an increase in salary or other phenomena not of interest to this study.
Step 3: Establish coding scheme. For this directed content analysis, the theoretical framework and the categories of prestige seeking strategies were identified from scholarly literature as discussed in the previous chapter and compiled into a table or category matrix. Each category is associated with a short list of the key words or phrases that describe the behavior.
Step 4: Code. in this study, a single researcher conducted the coding by hand, according to the category matrix established in Chapter 2. All documents were retained for another coder to validate. Human coding is not ideal, but in situations where semantical interpretation of the text is critical, human coders might be better than computers and this indeed is the approach taken in this study (Krippendorff , 1989).
Although the researcher attempted touse a qualitative data analysis (QDA) tool,
Concordance/Key Word in Context software, the computerized approach was eventually abandoned for a manual search where the entire context of the occurrence of the phrase
“tuition increase” or a prestige seeking strategy could be viewed.
The case of a speech by the president of Southern Methodist University (SMU) illustrates the challenge of identifying relevant references to tuition increase. In his fall
2012 address to faculty at SMU, the president’s speech contained two instances of the phrase “tuition increase.” Both instances described what the president identified as national trends. They did not describe an act or decision by the university. In the first The Price of Prestige 98 instance, the context of the reference is not in the sentence that contains the phrase
“tuition increase.” The context, public universities, is identified from the previous sentence:
I don’t think the situation for public institutions is going to get any better quickly. For the foreseeable future, the only increase in funding they can anticipate would be through tuition increases,…. [italics added] (see http://www.smu.edu/ AboutSMU/Administration/President/FacultyAddress2012)
In the second instance, the context of the reference to tuition increase occurred two sentences previously:
Trends also are beginning to affect private universities. Concern over the level of tuition and the accessibility of private institutions to middle and lower economic families has begun to direct more attention to the cost of private higher education, the debt levels of graduates, and the employment of their graduates. As a result, average tuition increases for the current year, and I believe for the next several years, will be reduced nationwide. [italics added] (see http://www.smu.edu/ AboutSMU/Administration/President/FacultyAddress2012)
Since the phrase describes a national trend and not a university decision, and since the document did not contain any references to a university decision about tuition increases, the researcher made the determination that the references to tuition increases were not related to decision making at SMU. No further coding took place; the document was set aside.
Within each document, every search used the application’s within-document search capability. For example, in Adobe Acrobat, the command “find” is found under the edit menu. In Microsoft Word, the search feature is also located in within the editing functionality. The first search in each document confirmed the presence of a phrase related to “tuition increase.” The researcher then read the paragraph that contained the reference to confirm the appropriateness of the context of the phrase for inclusion in the study. If the context was not appropriate, coding of the document was terminated. If the The Price of Prestige 99 context was appropriate, the sentence or sentences containing the phrase were extracted to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Then searches were performed sequentially for the presence or absence of a word or phrase representing one of the prestige seeking strategies. Where a behavior was identified in a document, once again the researcher read the paragraph to confirm that the references indeed addressed one of the themes in the coding matrix then extracted the sentence with the reference to the prestige seeking recorded it also in the Excel spreadsheet in a column for that category of behavior.
Details of the coded information can be found in Appendices E–K.
Step 5: Draw inference. The primary purpose of the content analysis was to determine whether evidence existed of prestige seeking in the mental maps of decision makers at the time that they were making decision about tuition increases. Thus, the method of analysis is conceptual, using explicit concepts (Carley, 1990). Carley (1990,
1997) published extensively on textual analysis and mental maps of both individuals and groups (Carley & Palmquist, 1992). Concept analysis counts the instances where a concepts or, in the case of this study, a pair of concepts (tuition increase plus an item from the category matrix) are found, but presence does not necessarily denote meaning.
Chapter 4 displays category counts for the categories of prestige-seeking strategies.
Content analysis infers from the contemporaneous presence in a document of a phrase or phrases with the meaning “tuition increase” and a phrase or phrases about a measure of prestige or a prestige-seeking strategy as defined by the category matrix that a relationship exists between the concepts. A by-product of the content analysis was to identify the titles and roles of those involved in the decision making. This was effected by counts of references to “Board of Trustees” or “Board” and by counts of other groups with a role in the tuition increase process. The Price of Prestige 100 Step 6: Validate. The possibility of validation in this study exists. For example, another researcher could perform the same type of content analysis on liberal arts colleges that this study did for national universities. With access to decision makers, a researcher could document and analyze the content of meetings and discussions at a single university where the tuition increase is considered.
Reliability and Validity in This Study
To enhance the study’s validity and reliability, the researcher followed protocols recommended by methodological experts such as Krippendorff (1989), Weber (1990),
Krippendorff (2004), Hsieh and Shannon (2005) and Elo and Kyngäs (2007). Some of those specific steps included:
1. Engaged an expert panel to review the theoretical premises of the study and
the prestige seeking strategies in the categorization matrix.
2. Coded only manifest content and did not address latent content or the deeper
meaning that might be conveyed by symbols and signs (Duriau et al., 2007).
3. Followed a detailed and replicable process documenting the criteria for
retrieving documents with relevant content; followed replicable coding
process using a category matrix.
4. Retained an audit trail.
5. Included output of coding phase in appendices
Nevertheless, as with any study, some threats affect validity and reliability. The first threat to validity is the use of a single coder and manual coding. The second threat to validity is that self-published documents in websites are not permanently available.
Minutes of meetings can be removed or access to such documents can be restricted; press releases can be made available for a single year or for multiple years. Therefore, a search The Price of Prestige 101 at a different time might turn up a different set of documents from those found in the course of this research. The researcher has offset some of the impact of this by retaining copies of documents analyzed in this study, should they be requested. In sum, the documentation of the process is critical to the study’s reliability and the researcher took precautions to ensure validity as well.
Expert Stakeholders
Expert Stakeholders Role
Petticrew and Roberts (2006) encouraged the involvement of the community of users in a systematic research process. Such stakeholders can be involved in planning the study and in formulating or refining the research question (Briner & Denyer, 2012;
Petticrew & Roberts, 2006; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003), in assessing the research protocol and identifying additional sources of data, and lastly in providing feedback on the interpretation of the results that they potentially will use or put into practice
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Gough, Oliver, and Thomas (2012) proposed that stakeholders could be involved as collaborators or consultants. As consultants, the role in which they are used in this study, experts bring organizational and practitioner knowledge and expertise, and their personal experience, to bear upon the research question (Gough et al., 2012).
Four individuals were asked to be expert stakeholders and all agreed. Three of the experts have been or are currently senior decision makers at private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States: one is a former president, the second is a former vice president in the Planning Department, and the third is currently a trustee. The fourth panel member, is an academic at a top ranked business school and has published on topics such as academic governance and new business models for higher education. The Price of Prestige 102 Each of the experts received an executive summary of the study organized under the following headings: (a) the problem, (b) the research question, (c) the theoretical framework, (d) the methodology, (e) the tentative findings, and (f) emerging solutions.
Each expert completed a questionnaire or to discuss feedback with the researcher. In
Chapter 5, the researcher reports the highlights of their feedback.
Expert Stakeholders
The first expert, Dr. Joe Cronin, was selected to reflect the practitioner point of view and the perspective of decision makers in private nonprofit higher education. Dr.
Cronin is not only a former president of a private nonprofit university, but he also currently teaches a course in higher education governance at a private, nonprofit university. The second expert, Dr. David Collis, was selected because he is an academic who has written extensively about corporate strategy including competitive scenarios and about the future of the business model of higher education and about higher education governance. Dr. Collis also has practitioner experience serving on the board of an
American business school. The third expert, Dr. Dan Rodas, has many years of experience as a senior higher education administrator, leading strategic planning for a private nonprofit university. The fourth expert is a member of the Board of trustees of a private nonprofit liberal arts college. As such, Mr. Williams also brings a practitioner perspective to the issue examined by this research. All of the experts rated themselves as having extensive personal experience with the problem posed by this study. Appendix A provides more detailed biographical information for each of the experts.
Having explained how the content analysis was conducted, Chapter 4 reports and discusses the results of the content analysis and the feedback from the experts consulted. The Price of Prestige 103 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The purpose of Chapter 1 was to describe the context of the problem and present the overarching question, which asks whether prestige seeking influences decisions at private, nonprofit colleges and universities at the time to increase tuition. The specific research question is:
. Can evidence demonstrate that prestige seeking is a part of decision makers’
mental maps when making tuition increase decisions?
Through the survey of theoretical literature in Chapter 2, the researcher identified three propositions from management theory that collectively provide a theoretical rationale about the potential link between prestige seeking and tuition increases.
1. Private nonprofit higher education institutions seek to maximize their prestige,
which signals higher quality and enables them increase revenue (Proposition
1).
2. In the field of higher education, organizations that seek legitimacy imitate the
strategies of the organizations that they perceive as more prestigious
(aspirational peers; Proposition 2).
3. Managers’ strategic mindsets about membership of a cognitive strategic group
and legitimate competitive behaviors frame decisions, such as decisions about
tuition increases (Proposition 3).
Having described the methodology for this study, content analysis, in Chapter 3, in this chapter, the researcher first reports the results of the content analysis, secondly summarizes the feedback from the experts consulted, and lastly discussed the results. The Price of Prestige 104 Content Analysis Findings
Chapter 3, the methodology section described the rationale for the content analysis and the process for the searches performed on each university’s website to identify and retrieve documents for analysis. This section, Chapter 4, reports the findings from the content analysis of the retrieved documents.
There were 84 universities in the final sample. For 25 of the 84, website searches using the key phrase, “tuition increase,” turned up no documents connecting tuition increases and decision makers, tuition increases and peer or competitor colleges, or tuition increases and prestige seeking strategies. Appendix C lists the 25. Therefore, the analyses reported in this chapter pertain to the 59 universities for which relevant content could be located.
Table 5 displays the types of documents retrieved that contained a reference to tuition increase. The two main types of documents are records of meetings and press releases. The numbers in the cell of the table refer to the year of the event if it is a meeting record or the year of publication for a press release. The third column, labelled student newspaper or newspaper, refers to reports of press releases or other communications about tuition releases, sometimes with additional discussion or commentary. The final column, other, describes miscellaneous sources of data, often a speech or a letter by the president of the universities to faculty or to the community at large.
One of the experts consulted by this researcher was concerned about how much information about tuition increase decisions might be publicly available. Table 6 provides more detail of the types of meetings for which meeting records were published on websites. Meeting types include board of trustees meetings, faculty senate meetings, The Price of Prestige 105 institutional priorities committee meetings, other budget group meetings, staff committee meetings, student senate meeting reports, and speeches or presentations at other meetings. The Price of Prestige 106 letter Other 2006 2004 Report in Life at the at in Life 2004 Report 2010 newspaper Newspaper/student 2012 2012 2009 2007 2007 2012 Press release Press 2010 2012 2004 2008 2008 2013 2012 2013 2011, 2012 2010, 2011, 2013 2010, 2011, 2013 2010, 2011, Records of meetings of Records nalysis in Content A in Content ncluded I 1 ocuments D of New York University York New University Northeastern Florida Institute of Technology of Institute Florida University Howard Drexel University Drexel University Duke University Emory Dartmouth College Dartmouth University DePaul University University American University Brown Table 5 Table Types The Price of Prestige
107 letter speech top Other convocation 2013 2012 2013 report 2009 2012 annual newspaper 2012 Newspaper/student 2006 2009 2013 2001 2012 2002 2003, 2009 Press release Press 2003 – 2013 2012 2013 2012 2010 2012 2002, 2002 2002, 2011, 2012 2006, 2011 2009, 2012 – 2002, 2011, 2013 2002, 2011, Records of meetings of Records 2001 2013 2010, 2005, 2008, Pace University Pace University of Dayton University of Denver University Texas Christian University Christian Texas University Tulane St. Mary's University of Minnesota University St. Mary's Technology of Institute Stevens University Syracuse Southern Methodist University Methodist Southern University St. Louis 1106 University Princeton University Seton Hall University The Price of Prestige
108 speech letter speech Other 2011 2011 2012, 2013 speech 2013 letter 2012 2010 newspaper Newspaper/student 2011 2012 2010, 2013 2003, 2013 Press release Press 2009,2010, 2012 2009,2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 2011, 2012, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013 2010, 2007, 2009, 2008 2007 2010 2013 2005 2011, 2012 2001, 2010, 2011 2001, 2010, 2012 2009, 2011, Records of meetings of Records Boston University Adelphi University Adelphi University Baylor Boston College University of Tulsa of University University Forest Wake University of St. Thomas of St. University Pacific of the University of Francisco San University University of Rochester University of Diego San University University of Pennsylvania University The Price of Prestige
109 speeches blog report Other 2012 2012 letter 2011 Student Senate 2011 Student 2009, 2010 Chronicle of Chronicle ducation E of 2002 2013 2006 2006, 2010 newspaper igher blog H Newspaper/student 2012 2004 2013 2007 2009 2009 2013 2013 2003, 2011 2008, 2011 Press release Press 2005, 2008, 2013 2005, 2008, 2008, 2012, 2013 2008, 2012, Records of meetings of Records University University of La Verne of La University Rice University Rice University Stanford of Chicago University Northwestern University Northwestern Institute Polytechnic Rensselaer Lehigh University Lehigh Technology of Institute Massachusetts Cornell University Washington George University University Mellon Carnegie The Price of Prestige
110 report letter speech 18 2009 Other taskforce 2012 2012 2009 s report s ’ 15 2005 1997 2013 2013 newspaper Newspaper/student 2011 president 34 2012 2007 2009 Press release Press 31 Records of meetings of Records University . Data in .cell refers Data in to the dateevent or the of publication. Count of universities with this type this with universities of Count Note Columbia University Columbia Chicago University Loyola of document University of Notre Dame of Notre University Yale Brandeis University Brandeis University Georgetown of Miami University Washington University in St. Louis in St. University Washington Institute Polytechnic Worcester University University Vanderbilt The Price of Prestige
111 budgets meeting Other VP of Presentation to Presentation council by Student senate Student Staff committee group Other budget equivalent priorities or priorities Institutional 2009 2004 2005 2008 president’s remarks to remarks faculty senate faculty Faculty senate Faculty 2008 2012 2013 trustees 2013, SP Board of Board presentation for Which Meeting Records were Retrieved were Records Meeting Which for s and Dates of Meeting of Dates and Wake Forest University Forest Wake University American University Northwestern St. Mary's University of Minnesota University St. Mary's University Northeastern University of Rochester University School of Pennsylvania University Table 6 Table Types The Price of Prestige
112 president 2008 Other to colleagues communication Senate Student senate Student Staff committee council 2012 council Staff advisory Staff group Other budget equivalent priorities or priorities Institutional review 2011 2013; 2011 2012 2012 2012 2013 2003, 2009 2006, 2011 2005, 2009, 2011; Senate Faculty senate Faculty financial committee of the of committee trustees Board of Board San Francisco San Pace University Pace Tulsa of University Texas Christian University Christian Texas University St. Louis Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt of University Tulane University Tulane University York New Technology of Institute Stevens School The Price of Prestige
113 Other Student senate Student Staff committee group Other budget equivalent priorities or priorities Institutional and of and emic emic utive get 2003 ittee – Senate 2002 Exec Acad 2010 – Bud Council Council the Committee 2010, 2013 2002 2009, 2012 2011. 2012 2010, 2011, Fiscal Affairs Fiscal Comm Faculty senate Faculty 2001 2013 2011 Acad 2013 2010 trustees Board of Board Seton Hall University Seton Hall University of Dayton University of Denver University Syracuse University Syracuse Florida Institute of Technology of Institute Florida University Duke Southern Methodist University Methodist Southern University Washington George Pacific of the University School The Price of Prestige
114 Other Student senate Student Staff committee isory Budget Budget group Other budget Adv Committee Committee 2007 2010 2008 2012 2012 equivalent priorities or priorities Institutional Senate meeting tuition Senate Summary increase president by of talks to of talks 2009 announced at announced faculty 2013 Faculty senate Faculty faculty trustees Board of Board Howard University Howard of Diego San University Princeton University Princeton University DePaul Massachusetts Institute of Institute Massachusetts Technology University Brown Emory University Emory School The Price of Prestige
115 Alumni Other 2013 Council meeting, Council 2006 2011 Student senate Student Staff Staff Council 2010 committee group Other budget equivalent priorities or priorities Institutional Faculty senate Faculty trustees Board of Board Polytechnic Institute Polytechnic Dartmouth College Dartmouth University of St. Thomas of St. University University Baylor Rensselaer School The Price of Prestige 116 In the first analysis, the researcher identified “decision makers.” In the second section, the researcher presents the findings from the content analysis that relate to expressions of prestige seeking among decision makers. In the third analysis, the researcher reviews findings pertaining to the cognitive strategic groups that universities assess themselves to be members of, or to which they aspire to be members. The final section of this report summarizes the data about the prestige seeking strategies found in conjunction with a word or phrase having the same meaning as “tuition increase.” The tables in Appendices E through K display the specific content extracted from the retrieved documents. Each table (a) includes the name of the university and its USNWR rank in 2013 (published in the fall of 2012), (b) the type and date of the document that content was located in, (c) the context and content of the reference to tuition increase, and
(d) content pertaining to the second variable in the analysis.
Decision makers
In the literature, researchers have not studied tuition increases as a decision; therefore, the purpose of the first analysis was to identify the decision makers. This analysis was performed inductively. That is, from each document that contained a reference to “tuition increase” or a phrase of similar meaning, information was extracted pertaining to individuals, positions, or groups that recommend, consider, or approve tuition increases. In 46 of the 59 universities in the USNWR top 200 for which data was located through a search on that college’s website, the content analysis identified that the
Board of Trustees had a role in the tuition increase decision, typically an approval role
(see Appendix D). In two instances, the minutes of a Board of Trustees meeting at which tuition increases were approved were publicly available for viewing. The University of
Pennsylvania Board of Trustees meeting on February 27, 2012, included a resolution: The Price of Prestige 117 Resolution to Authorize Tuition, Fees, and Other Student Charges for Academic Year 2012–2013 (p. 60; Kruhly, 2012, p. 5)
The Board of Trustees of Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, meeting on
February 14–15, 2013 reported:
Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees approves the tuition, room, board and fee schedule for the undergraduate college for 2013–2014 with an increase of 3.5% with the total package increasing from $35,760 to $37,015. (St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, 2013, p. 7)
For 22 institutions, press releases were posted on websites noting that the Board of Trustees approved the tuition increase. Brown and MIT referred to the “corporation.”
In six instances, the campus or student newspaper or alumni magazine reported the Board of Trustees’ decision. In other cases, the president wrote to the community, or to parents.
One additional source, the minutes of a meeting, records another member of the administration reporting the tuition decision to the Faculty Senate or a Faculty Senate subcommittee.
Less data were found about the involvement of other positions or groups within a university in tuition increase decisions and the picture the data paints is less uniform about the decision making process. For example, Freeman (2012) provided the MIT online student newspaper the most inclusive description of decision makers involved in the process of deciding a tuition increase:
The process starts with a committee run by the Dean for Undergraduate Education and including the Provost, the Chancellor, the Executive Vice President, the Vice President for Finance, the Dean for Graduate Education, the Dean for Student Life, the Chair of the Faculty, and the Chair of CUAFA. The committee makes a recommendation on the necessary increases in tuition and financial aid to Academic Council and the President, which, in turn, goes on to the Corporation. B. Chancellor announces decision to faculty meeting.
In the MIT process, the academic council and the president must agree to the recommendation before it can go to the corporation. The University of San Diego The Price of Prestige 118 published a document describing the interaction of (a) the Budget working group, cochaired by the vice president of the Finance Department and the vice president and provost, that proposed the budget assumptions, (b) the university Budget Committee that submits the budget for the Board of Trustees’ approval, and (c) the finance committee of the Board of Trustees that recommends the budget for approval by (d) the full Board. Ten organizations used a committee or working group as part of the tuition increase decision- making process. References to such structures were typically found in the minutes of the groups’ meetings or in their reports. For example, Howard University had a budget advisory committee and a tuition and rates advisory committee. Princeton and the
University of the Pacific had a university or institutional priorities committee, a model that Duke University was trying to follow, or university resources committee (Brown).
Princeton’s resources committee included faculty, students, and staff. It consults with the
Board of Trustees Committee on Finance. The University of the Pacific Institutional
Resources Committee includes the president and vice presidents and additional representatives from deans, faculty, administrative staff, and students. At Brown
University, this committee was a standing subcommittee of faculty and its role was to
“recommend” the tuition increase.
At three universities--Syracuse, Seton Hall, and Tulsa--the content analysis identified that faculty or the faculty senate had involvement in the tuition increase decision through a Senate Budget Committee. Committee minutes or annual reports that were published on the university’s website provided the source data. In other instances, the faculty senate meeting minutes record the president or senior administrator informing the faculty about the Board of Trustees’ decision (Denver, Florida Institute of
Technology, Northeastern, Texas Christian University [TCU]). The Price of Prestige 119 In summary, at the majority of institutions, the Board of Trustees was the ultimate decision maker about tuition increases. In many instances, the content analysis identified the involvement, through a committee structure, of a combination of organizational leaders, and representatives from both academics and administration, who prepared recommendations to be presented to the Board of Trustees. As the following sections report, these documents and others referencing tuition increases also contained content that could be analyzed for prestige seeking, for the identity of the cognitive strategic group that the focal university belonged to or aspired to belong to and to develop maps of other elements of decision maker mindsets such as prestige seeking strategies.
Evidence of Prestige-Seeking
At two universities, TCU and Tulsa, faculty meeting minutes provided a record of questions by the senate or a senator to administration, directly relating tuition increases to prestige seeking through improving a university’s position in the rankings:
Senator Arnie Barkman asked whether TCU is trying to get into a higher ranking in tuition costs. (Texas Christian University, 2003)
What will be driving tuition levels in the future? Do you feel that tuition levels are a factor in TU obtaining top 50 status? (Financial Review Committee of the Faculty Senate of Tulsa University, 2011, p. 1)
The Lehigh student newspaper, the Brown and White, quoted the chair of the economics department in an article about a recently announced tuition increase:
James Dearden, chair of the economics department, researches and writes about merit aid and college rankings. He said the reason university prices rise faster than consumer prices is this interuniversity competition. “Universities are caught up in an arms race to attract students,” Dearden said. “Universities have figured out that the way to attract better students is to have better faculty and facilities and to offer better students merit aid. And attracting good students is expensive.” The long- term result of this competition to get the best students is a zero-sum game, Dearden said, because offering more money won’t improve the quality of high school seniors. The Price of Prestige 120 Dearden said he was not surprised by the tuition increase and he thinks the increases were probably warranted by Lehigh’s U.S. News & World Report ranking increase. (Lewis, 2006)
At La Verne University, the Dean of the School of Business and Public
Management explained leadership’s belief that tuition signals of academic quality:
“We try to maintain our tuition with that of peer schools because, frankly, quality perceptions depend upon price,” Badovick said. “If something is priced high, it is perceived as quality. If other schools raise tuition and we don’t, people will wonder why, as well as if our school is really as good as the others.” (Low, 2003)
Several other universities (Carnegie Mellon, Boston College, Boston University,
St. Louis University, Georgetown) included a sentence about their USNWR ranking or tier in their press release or other announcement about their tuition increase. Seton Hall faculty senate meeting minutes record the provost as having said that
Favorable comparisons will be made with Tier II colleagues which will permit greater tuition increases for example, increased faculty, etc. (Seton Hall University, 2001, p. 9)
For other universities, strategic plans, which are presented to Boards of Trustees for approval, articulate evidence of prestige seeking. To describe the Johns Hopkins
University of today in its strategic plan documents, the university used references to its research productivity, and to rankings of its undergraduate schools and several of its graduate programs especially in health.
St. Mary’s of Minnesota wanted to become a top tier national university, while St.
Thomas (also located in Minnesota) thought its board wished to changes its reputation from regional to national, beginning with its School of Law.
Appendix E presents details of the content underpinning the findings in this section. These documents provide evidence of the co-presence of awareness of relative The Price of Prestige 121 position, or relative prestige and tuition increase decisions in communications, suggesting a co-presence in decision maker mental maps.
Framing the Tuition Increase Decision With Cognitive Strategic Groups
As the data in Appendix F shows, through the content analysis, the researcher found that tuition increases were often explained or justified by reference to a peer group of institutions or by reference to a group of aspirational peers. Some universities provided a rationale for the selection of the organizations to which they compared themselves: for example, Rochester compared itself to other members of the American Association of
Universities (AAU) with medical centers. The AAU is a select group of leading research universities. The University of Dayton described itself as a top 10 Catholic university, and Marquette University compared itself to other Jesuit universities. Adelphi called itself a top regional institution. St. Thomas compared its tuition to other members of the
Minnesota Private College Council and to a group it called “the Sacred Eight”
(Duquesne, Fordham, Loyola, Marquette, St. Louis, Seton Hall, San Francisco, and
Dayton). Brown, the lowest ranked Ivy League school, compared itself to the other Ivies.
For other universities who did not articulate a rational for those that they to which they elected to compare themselves, cognitive strategic group members appeared to be nearly always higher ranked. For example, Georgetown compared itself to Brown,
Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Notre
Dame, and Pennsylvania, which are all higher-ranked, but not to the lower-ranked, also
Catholic, but more expensive, Boston College. In 2010, Boston University compared itself to higher-ranked Washington University at St. Louis, Brown, Emory, and
Georgetown, and lower-ranked American University. As Boston University’s rank rose in
2012, it added higher ranked universities to its cognitive strategic group: Rice, Carnegie The Price of Prestige 122 Mellon, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Princeton. Baylor compared itself favorably to its peers in Texas, Rice (higher ranked and which compared itself to Stanford and Princeton),
SMU (higher ranked) and Texas Christian (slightly lower ranked). Outside Texas Baylor compared itself only to higher ranked universities such as Stanford, Duke, and
Vanderbilt. The University of Denver, ranked 91, named a group of “peers,” including
Case Western (37), Tulane (52), Tulsa (86), and Loyola of Chicago (101) and a group of aspirational peers including Duke (7), Dartmouth (10), and Vanderbilt (17).
The data provide some evidence that, as they set tuition, colleges and universities compared themselves to other members of the strategic group to which they belonged, or compared themselves favorably to a group to which they aspired to belong.
Imitation of Prestige Seeking Strategies
Using the framework derived from the literature review, prestige-seeking strategies were extracted from documents that contained a reference to tuition increases and were categorized under the headings of student quality, sports, faculty and research, building and physical facilities, and additional schools and programs. In the next sections, the researcher summarizes the findings from the content analysis concerning references to such prestige-seeking strategies in communications from organizational leaders about tuition increases, evidencing that both are a part of and related in the mental maps of decision makers.
Student quality and admissions selectivity. Descriptions of admissions selectivity or student quality appeared in the same documents as references to and tuition increases. Appendix G shows data gathered from documents that include both references to tuition increases and to student quality or admissions selectivity. Types of documents included press releases, faculty or staff council meeting minutes, and senior executive The Price of Prestige 123 speeches or letters presenting an annual report. Most statements were specific. As an example, the president of SMU, welcoming faculty back in August of 2012 said
We continue to make progress toward our goal of an average SAT score of 1300 by 2015. I am delighted to announce that the incoming first-year class has an average SAT of 1275, an increase of six points over last year.
In order to add at least 25 points to the average SAT score of incoming students over the next three years, we must continue to grow our applicant pool, increase the yield of those admitted to the University, and develop more sources for both need- and merit-based scholarships. (Turner, 2012)
He concluded his speech with reference to concerns over the levels of average annual tuition increases.
Other colleges mentioned increases in number of applicants (Carnegie Mellon,
Case Western, Boston University, George Washington, Baylor, Denver etc.), decreases in the percent of applicants accepted and changes in yields (Georgetown, Case Western,
Northeastern etc.), or increases in SAT or ACT scores (Carnegie Mellon, Rochester, Case
Western, Boston University, and St. Louis). Using merit aid to attract students of higher quality was not analyzed exhaustively. Baylor, Boston University, Duke, and Texas
Christian mention it as a strategy.
Sports. Fewer references were made to sports as a prestige-seeking strategy in documents that address tuition increases. Only seven universities mentioned sports in the same document as tuition increase. At Tulane University the appointment of a new football coach, “the only head coach that has a national championship ring (Miami) and a
Superbowl ring (Saints),” was the first item on the president’s report to the faculty senate on December 5, 2010. The tuition increase of 4.14% came later in that report. In the Staff
Council minutes for December 2012, the University Senate at Tulane reported that the president had informed them that Tulane was joining a new football conference, the Big The Price of Prestige 124 East. Southern Methodist’s president reported a similar move in football conference to the SMU faculty senate in 2012. TCU noted an upsurge in national recognition because of a successful football season with the faculty senate minutes referring to a “Flutie effect.” The Flutie effect is named after the Boston College quarterback whose performance and successes resulted in increased exposure and prominence at that university. Others refer to capital investment in athletic facilities (Georgetown— boathouse, Boston University—lacrosse field).
Faculty and research. In documents that contain reference tuition increases, decision makers also reference the recruitment or retention of best, top, or highest quality faculty. This was particularly evident among top-ranked universities. Itemizations of the sentences of phrases found in the same documents that describe or inform about a tuition increase are presented in Appendix H. Twenty six of the universities reviewed in this study evidenced one or more of the faculty and research-related prestige-seeking behaviors. The majority of references in this section were to the recruitment or retention of the best faculty (Princeton), top scholars (University of Chicago), top faculty (Penn), highest quality scholars and teachers (Dartmouth) and similar phrases. For George
Washington, “top” meant that the PhD was earned from an Ivy League university or a top public institution. Most of the cited institutions do not define “top.” Some note that faculty or recently recruited faculty were members of a national academy such as the
National Academy of Sciences (Vanderbilt, Florida Institute of Technology). Some had goals or spoke in terms of increasing faculty scholarship (Adelphi, La Verne) or visibility
(George Washington), faculty research productivity (Northeastern) or publishing more The Price of Prestige 125 (Florida Institute of Technology). The text below about Baylor University is illustrative of prestige seeking through increased research.
Without major new funding, the university is finding it difficult to make the hires and build the programs to break into the ranks of "Tier One" universities, as defined by the U.S. News & World Report rankings of the top 50 national universities.
Since 2002, the university's doctoral programs have increased from 14 to 24, and faculty publications in major journals grew from 200 a year to 636 in 2011. Provost Elizabeth Davis, the university's No. 2 academic officer after the president, said Baylor needs to triple or quadruple its research spending and production to enter that elite company. (Smith, 2012)
Other evidence of research-based prestige seeking included references to improving a university’s relative position in the National Research Council Rankings
(Cornell) or graduating sufficient numbers of PhDs to maintain Carnegie Classification status as a doctoral granting university (Tulsa). Also noted but not analyzed are the size and context of faculty merit increase pools, some of which were stated to be to improve position relative to selected “peers” or to counteract competitive pressure (e.g., Princeton,
American University).
Buildings and facilities. Twenty nine colleges or universities referenced building activities in the same documents that contain a reference to tuition increase, evidence that prestige-seeking strategies through building construction were considered contemporaneously with tuition increases. In some cases, the reference is to the approval of capital expenditure by the Board of Trustees at the same meeting that approved the tuition increase. The minutes of the Penn Board of trustees meeting on February 27,
2012, recorded the approval of motions approving the tuition increase as well as motions authorizing $39mm of construction projects. For example:
Mr. Rachleff presented the following resolutions, which were approved (full resolution text is appended): The Price of Prestige 126 • Resolution to Authorize Design and Construction of the Steinberg Hall – Dietrich Hall West Entrance Addition for an Additional $17,390,000 (Total Revised Budget of $18,500,000; Kruhly, 2012, p. 5)
A second example, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of American
University reported the board’s decision for the tuition increase and for the completion of a new home for its Law School.
Although several of the references to buildings and tuition increases were found in board meeting minutes or press releases reporting board decisions, Presidents’ letters and speeches to faculty or the campus community in a form of annual report were a second source of data that evidenced what senior leaders considered to be significant accomplishments realted to buildings and construction. Examples included George
Washington University, Boston University, and Adelphi University. Appendix J contains details.
More schools and programs. For 22 of the 58 private nonprofit national universities in the USNWR top 200 for which documents was located and analyzed, there was some content linking tuition increases and investments in academic programs, including new programs. In four instances, documents that recorded Board of Trustees’ decisions to increase tuition also recorded their discussions and motions to approve investment in a new school or program (George Washington, Tulane, Baylor, Florida
Institute of Technology). At St. Louis University, some of the funds that resulted from the tuition increase were directly earmarked to support a recently launched program.
reported that new spending was kept to a minimum this year . . . . $1.2 million in expenses from previously approved new programs primarily in the School of Public Health and Parks. (St. Louis University, 2013)
Faculty Senate meetings, either where a tuition increase decision was recommended or where information was provided about the Board of Trustees’ approval The Price of Prestige 127 of the same, were another forum at which new programs were discussed (Texas
Christian, Seton Hall). Appendix K provides the content extracted from original source documents in which references were made to both new programs or schools and tuition increases.
The content analysis in this study provides a number of examples of the copresence of tuition increase and prestige seeking or a prestige-seeking strategy either in communications about tuition increase decisions or, through meeting minutes in discussions that lead to the establishment of the annual tuition increase. Among the universities in the sample, the content analysis identified several who had organizational objectives to enhance their prestige or their ranking to the top 50, a behavior that one of the expert stakeholders confirmed. When considering tuition increases, the content analysis found examples of comparisons to other organizations, usually higher ranked.
Lastly, the content analysis provided examples of the imitation of prestige-seeking strategies identified by scholars such as Brewer et al. (2002), such as increasing student selectivity, recruiting top faculty, or raising compensation to retain top (and all other) faculty, and enhancing research productivity and output, significant investments in new facilities and in new programs and schools.
Experts’ Feedback
The experts agreed that the problem that the researcher addresses in this study is an important one, and that it was important for organizational leaders to understand why they make the pricing decisions they make. One of the experts commented that prestige seeking might be a consideration about which trustees are less aware, and that bringing prestige seeking to the fore might improve the quality of decisions. The Price of Prestige 128 Commenting on the breadth and depth of theoretical framework presented in the summary, one of the experts suggested a more extensive coverage of status–related theory, and the perceived benefits conferred on a focal organization through associating with, or participating in, a network of higher status organizations. Perceptions of higher quality are a benefit sought by lower status organizations from participating in a high status organization’s network (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999). Consistent with this body of theoretical literature, the data reported earlier in this chapter illustrate how lower status universities attempt to associate themselves with higher status organizations through favorable comparison of their rates of tuition or tuition increases. To extend the discussion of status in Chapter 3, further findings in the status and networking literature suggest the greater benefits accrue to higher status organizations regardless of quality. A second finding concerns the stability (inertia) of status hierarchies.
Although experts cited examples of the sometimes-aggressive prestige seeking by universities with which they were familiar, they also cautioned that raising tuition might be more highly correlated with prestige seeking only among the top 200 universities. The experts suggested that colleges below this level or colleges that are not already national in scope care about prestige and quality; however, lacking diversified revenue streams, they might raise tuition to balance their budgets. This study collected only data about the first group, the top 200 universities. The concern that the experts raised merits further study, below the top tiers of national universities and liberal arts colleges. They cautioned against generalizing the findings reported in this study.
Commenting on the choice of methodology, one expert was concerned about whether the kinds of information publicly available to the researcher for content analysis would adequately reflect the discussions that take place around the development of The Price of Prestige 129 recommendations for a tuition increase. As reported earlier in this chapter, 33 of the universities made available some records of meetings where tuition increases were reported or discussed. In other industries, less disclosure and less documentation might be available to researchers. In addition to groups with specific responsibility for recommending tuition increases, such as institutional priorities committees, two universities published at least one set of minutes of Boards of Trustees meetings.
According to Table 6, for 25 universities, the researcher located and analyzed meeting minutes or reports of faculty senate meetings where the tuition increase was discussed or reported. The researcher recognizes that the purpose of meeting minutes is to report or communicate decisions and that they are often a reduction of the dialog that actually took place in a meeting, but believes that the number of instances for which meeting minutes were located offsets what might otherwise be a concern for the credibility of the study.
The data available through self-published sources was a relatively rich array; therefore, the researcher did not feel that it was necessary to implement the expert’s suggestion to supplement the findings of this study with reports, commentary, or opinions from newspapers such as the New York Times or the Chronicle of Higher Education. Such sources might not identify the sources of the information reported or how the subject universities were selected.
Discussion of Findings from Content Analysis
Content analysis is a qualitative research method that recognizes the importance of language and text for understanding cognitive schemas. Cognitive schemas or mental maps are critical to decision makers’ interpretation of data and decision making (Duriau et al., 2007; Stimpert & Duhaime, 2008). Content analysis allows the discovery of the focus of organizational attention (Stemler, 2001). Through content analysis, researchers The Price of Prestige 130 can identify sets of beliefs about organizational objectives, competitors, and strategic options that are part of mental maps (Stimpert & Duhaime, 2008). The critical assumption that content analysis makes is that verbal expression is an indication of mental activity (Huff, 1990) and that the co-occurrence of words indicates a relationship between concepts sometimes at a level below surface awareness.
In this study, documents, including strategic plans, were only coded if they contained a reference to “tuition increase”. As a strategic decision, the study expected, but failed to find much information about tuition increases in universities’ strategic plans.
A content analysis of university strategic plans (e.g., Wyatt, 2011) with the objective of showing how strategic choices move a university into a more prestigious tier, found significant evidence of prestige seeking and prestige-seeking behaviors, but did not seek or evaluate a potential association between prestige seeking and the tuition increase.
The variety of documents published on university websites, which included minutes of meetings of faculty senates or senate subcommittees with budget responsibility, gave some insight into the content and process of decision making about tuition making. A very small number of documents revealed the extent of scanning (other than scanning for announced increase percentages by peer or aspirational peer universities) or if alternatives were discussed. Unlike, for example, the meeting minutes of the Federal Reserve Bank Open Market Committee, the minutes coded in this study’s content analysis usually were limited to recording key questions and results of votes or decisions. Some included a synopsis of presentations about the current environment of the university from senior administrators such as the president or a finance executive.
The documents in this content analysis were located through a search only on university websites. All universities are required to disclose their tuition and fee The Price of Prestige 131 schedules, but they are not required to announce or comment on the current year tuition relative to a previous year. Thus, the results in this content analysis might be affected by the effectiveness of the underlying search algorithms that locate documents containing phrases with the meaning “tuition increase.” One reason for variability in search results could be that such documents are removed from publication on the website after a time.
A search for documents on websites might be time-sensitive and other researchers might not get the same results. A case in point, in March of 2014, the University of Notre Dame website has an announcement about the level of tuition for its academic year 2014–2015
(O’Shaughnessy, 2014, February 18), but did not have documents pertaining to prior year announcements at the time of the search, in October–November of 2013. Another reason for being unable to locate content is that not all document formats support within- document search. Of the university websites reviewed, the simple search did not locate and content containing the phase “tuition increase” for 27 of the 82 private nonprofit universities in the USNWR top 200oor located accouncements with no explanation of the factors involved in the decision.. Examples include Fordham University, Clark
University, and Immaculata. In and of itself, the absence of content to code does not affect the findings of this study.
Several studies by other scholars have aggregated universities into groups such as deciles (Winston, 1999), quartiles (Meredith, 2004), the “front page” or top 50 (Bowman
& Bastedo, 2009) or tiers one through four (Bastedo & Bowman, 2011) and tested for differences between those groups. In this study, the unit of analysis was a university.
Table 7 presents a count of the private nonprofit universities by tier according to the
USNWR 2013 ranking. It also shows counts of the numbers for whom data about prestige The Price of Prestige 132 seeking or a prestige seeking strategy was identified in the same document as a reference to tuition increases. The Price of Prestige 133 4 3 3 6 2 4 22 programs New 2 4 4 4 4 28 10 Buildings 3 2 2 4 4 faculty 11 26 Star 3 4 5 3 4 19 selectivity Admissions Content or a Prestige Seeking Strategy Seeking Prestige a or Content 4 4 4 7 4 11 34 content Seeking Total w/prestige Total with increase 8 8 4 5 18 10 53 Total documents tuition - 6 13 83 24 12 12 16 profits ranked profits Total PTE non PTE Total Documents With “Tuition Increase” and Prestige and Increase” “Tuition With Documents 7 150 200 – – 50 75 100 le – – – 25 – Total 100 150 26 51 76 Rank 1 Tab of Count The Price of Prestige 134 This study derived a theoretical framework from scholarly literature that proposed that the strategies of nearby competitors who comprise their cognitive strategic group are an important aspect of senior administrator mental models and influence the competitive strategies they select. The evidence aligns with the framework. Dimensions for selecting such groups appear to include environmental characteristics such as history (the Ivy
League), geography, and religious affiliation among the catholic and Jesuit universities, as well as legitimacy dimensions. Tuition increase discussions identified strategic groups such as the Sacred Eight (University of St. Thomas, in reference to other Catholic universities in the top 200), and the “Lucky 13” by Northeastern as well as the Ivy
League. Geography is evident as a characteristic in setting cognitive groups: Baylor, ranked 75, compared itself to “peer” private institutions in Texas, like Rice, ranked 20.
Also in Texas, TCU ranked 82, having caught up with some its comparison institutions, now compared very slightly favorably to SMU, ranked 60, and Tulane. The University of
La Verne compared itself primarily with lower tier California universities such as Azusa
Pacific and Pepperdine, while Maryville of St. Louis aspired to become more than a top- ranked St. Louis university; its goal was to become a top-ranked Midwestern university.
References to “the top 50,” the “top 100” and “top tier national” also aligned with findings of other researchers about the role of USNWR as an external, third party organization that could confer legitimacy, similar to findings by Deephouse (1996),
Barreto and Baden-Fuller (2006) and Kim (2013) in their studies of banks and investment companies. One of the institutes of technology, Stevens, compared itself to other institutes of technology, while Renslaer Institute of Technology selected 11 peers of which only two, MIT and Worcester, were institutes of technology. This asymmetry is not unexpected. Other studies have reported a similar condition (Kim, 2013). In all, 32 The Price of Prestige 135 universities out of the 53 universities for which data was found and coded referenced a competitive group or competitors. The data illustrate both the tactic of, if favorable, tying the increase percent for tuition to a group of peer institutions, and the argument that competitor positions and strategies are represented in mental models.
Quality of Conclusions
According to Miles et al. (2014) the quality of conclusions that can be drawn from a qualitative analysis are a function of its objectivity and confirmability, reliability and auditability, and internal validity of a study. Reliability for this study is achieved through detailed description of the way in which the data was collected and the provision, in the appendices, of extracted data together with a description of the source document that the data was extracted. Reliability is confirmed as analyses are clearly specified and related to theory, and the extracted data for each of the analyses pertained to several of the 59 universities for which relevant documents were located. Miles et al. (2014) advocated for context rich, meaningful, and thick descriptions, as has been used in the presentation of findings in this study, for establishing authenticity and internal validity. Both Stemler
(2001) and Miles et al. (2014) recommended triangulation of findings as a test of validity.
In this study, the expert stakeholders provided some validation of the pattern of organizational behavior. For example, Dr. Cronin said, “BU [Boston University] is a great university, tho (sic) obsessed with rankings and prestige. Trustees want Pres Bob
Brown to work to climb higher and begin to challenge MIT and Harvard” (J. M. Cronin, personal communication, January 21, 2014) and Dr. Rodas cited the example of George
Washington University: “A very good case study is George Washington University. GW increased tuition very rapidly over a 20 year period, used the money to invest in quality, and became more prestigious” (D. J. Rodas, personal communication, March 9, 2014). The Price of Prestige 136 Lastly, the unobtrusiveness of content analysis makes it one of few methods that can be used for the study of senior decision makers to whom access is often limited (Duriau at el., 2007).
Alternative Interpretations
Miles et al. (2014) recommend considering rival explanations as a way to increase validity. The coding scheme selected for the content analysis limits the possibility of alternative explanations. In this study, the selected coding scheme was deductive, aligned with preidentified, prestige-seeking strategies. If an inductive coding scheme had been employed, the argument or justification for tuition increases might identify a number of expense related drivers such as (a) salary increases or making salaries more competitive;
(b) increases in benefits, especially healthcare costs, or most recently (c) a higher rate of increase in the amount of financial aid pool than the increase in tuition, and (d) the addition of faculty without specifying a driver or a reason for the increase such as to accommodate growth in the student body, to effect a decrease in class size or a reduction or teaching loads or some combination of these. These justifications support the cost disease theory of price increases reviewed in the earlier chapter, and they might also be a part of decision-maker mental maps, but they do not help decision makers to identify what they need to do—or to think—differently. In this management study, the researcher sought to identify patterns and strategies that leadership could change to affect positively
—and lower—the rate of tuition increases.
Although, in this study, the researcher found an association between tuition increases and prestige seeking or prestige-seeking strategies, it is a limitation that content analysis comprehends relationships, but in most applications, it does not determine The Price of Prestige 137 causality. Another limitation, the methodology of content analysis of published documents cannot tease out motivations unless these are evidenced in a document.
Despite these limitations of the methodology, the data presented here appear to align with the theoretical framework that proposed that prestige-seeking strategies are a part of the strategic cognition of senior decision makers at private, nonprofit colleges and universities at the time that they are making decisions to increase tuition. The Price of Prestige 138 CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SUMMARY
The cognitive perspective in management describes how managers’ mental models or shared beliefs about the environment, competition, and state of the organization influence strategic decision making (Narayanan et al., 2011; Porac &
Thomas, 2002). Mental models filter what managers pay attention to, slant the interpretation of information, and guide the framing of decisions (Barr et al., 1992). The cognitive strategic group, that group of organizations that managers believe they compete with, is a major element of mental models that define intragroup competition (Barreto &
Baden-Fuller, 2006; Hodgkinson, 1997; Reger & Huff, 1993). With a reputational ordering, the focal organization might identify and want to mimic those higher status groups and organizations to increase its own legitimacy (Tikkanen et al., 2005). Both institutional forces and managerial cognition tend to, at best, slow the rate of adaptation of organizations to their environment or, at worst, result in inertia as the desire for legitimacy dominates and smothers innovative thinking or action (Hodgkinson, 1997;
Narayanan et al., 2011).
This study proposed that managerial cognition frames and affects the tuition increase decision. Specifically, the study began with a review of the scholarly literature about higher education and found evidence that prestige seeking and strategies to enhance prestige are a part of the strategic frame and managerial cognition of university leaders
(Bastedo & Bowman, 2011; Brewer et al., 2002; Conrad & Eagan, 1989; Gioia &
Thomas, 1996; Kerr, 1991; Martins, 2005; Toma, 2008, 2012; Wyatt, 2011). Through analysis of documents published on the websites of the private nonprofit universities listed in the USNWR top 200 for national universities, the researcher also found evidence that decision makers’ strategic frames at the time of agreeing on the amount of tuition The Price of Prestige 139 increases included similar prestige-seeking behaviors. The documents analyzed included both meeting minutes where the decision was considered, and press releases where the context and amount of the approved increase were communicated.
The researcher takes the position that setting tuition is a strategic management decision, and sought to determine whether an association exists between prestige seeking strategies and pricing. The content analysis conducted in this study used publicly available documents from websites of private nonprofit universities in the USNWR top
200 national universities and found a significant number of instances of the copresence of a reference to a prestige seeking strategy and a reference to the tuition increase decision.
The purpose of this concluding chapter is to draw out implications for management, to discuss the findings in the context of recent trends and events that have increased the importance of the study, to make clear the limitations of the study, and to describe areas of potential future research.
Implications for Management
The study chose to look at pricing as a strategic management decision, not a routine or a tactical decision. Early research indicated that the involvement of the board of trustees in the tuition increase decision involved a higher visibility in higher education for the price increases decision than might be found in other industries.
Rarely is price, or tuition to universities, studied as a strategic decision in the management literature, in contrast to innovation (e.g., Greve & Taylor, 2000; Kabanoff &
Keegan, 2007) or decisions about organizational boundaries such as diversification or alliances. This might explain why the phrase “tuition increase” did not turn up in strategic plan documents. A different content analysis study, a study of university strategic plans, found significant evidence of prestige seeking and prestige-seeking behaviors (Wyatt, The Price of Prestige 140 2011). Secondly, setting price might be considered a routine, rather than a strategic, decision. Yet the annual pricing decision, either in the context of setting budget parameters or approval of a budget, affects resources available for allocation to strategic priorities. Narayanan et al. (2011) connected routines to strategic cognition, finding that such routines often did not involve deliberate search; therefore, the prevailing strategic frame could dominate cognition. In the case of universities, prestige seeking would be a part of that prevailing strategic frame, as Wyatt (2011) and others have demonstrated.
Although pricing has certainly been studied in the economics and sociology literature, as well as in scholarly literature about marketing, in the management literature, pricing has typically not been studied as a strategic management decision. In this study, the researcher selected the multilevel (individual, group, organization) construct of managerial cognition as one of two theoretical lenses, with a focus on the limitation to broader environmental scanning that results from selection and membership of a cognitive strategic group, and the recurring use of the same heuristics that also prevent repositioning the tuition increase decision in a broader strategic context. Institutional theory also provided a field-wide perspective on organizational behavior and the isomorphic forces that result in organizations become more alike and more fearful of breaking away from industry recipes or dominant logics because of potential loss of legitimacy (Suchman, 2005; Barreto & Baden-Fuller, 2006). Thus, the theoretical lens reinforced an explanation that are “more of the same” rather than asking the question of what might cause change. This study can serve the purpose of making decision makers aware of the importance of adopting a broader perspective on the tuition increase decision and of the way in which prestige seeking exerts a cost—a socially irresponsible The Price of Prestige 141 cost—on society. However, strategic cognition is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive theoretical approach that does not immediately suggest a solution or a way out.
The implication for management at universities is clear. These observations beg the question of how to change individual and collective cognition and how to elevate the perception of tuition-setting from the level of a routine decision. Both of these challenges— changing individual cognition and changing collective cognition—are difficult to do, especially in a highly institutionalised setting such as higher education. As the model described in the next paragraphs shows, awareness of an issue is not enough to effect change in cognition.
Managerial cognition consists of attention, interpretation, and action (Barr et al.,
1992; Kabanoff & Brown, 2008). Cognitions rarely change spontaneously. They change because of information being noticed. Figure 5 below is one example of a model for cognitive change. The process begins with decision makers scanning the environment.
They will notice some events, but not others. If an event in the environment is noticed, decision makers must then interpret its impact in terms of how it affects the organization’s performance and stress where stress reflects decision makers and other stakeholders’ dissatisfaction with the current strategy. Stress must overcome organizational inertia before change can take place. The Price of Prestige 142
Figure 5. Cognitive model of strategic change process. From “Understanding Diversity in the Timing of Strategic Response” by A. S. Huff, J. O. Huff, and P. S. Barr, 2000, In When Firms Change Direction (pp. 123–147), Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p. 125. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press. Reprinted with permission.
Applying this model to higher education, some speeches by some organizational leaders demonstrate recognition the issue of tuition increase. The extracts from the speech by the president of SMU, cited in Chapter 4, illustrate that organizational leaders have scanned and noted the issue of excessive tuition increase. However, like other colleges, at SMU stakeholders have not interpreted the data from scanning as an issue that affects the performance of this university so the next steps in the change process have not been activated. Looking at the problem of tuition increases through the context of prestige seeking, this researcher found some evidence that tuition and prestige seeking are associated in the minds of decision makers both directly, as the citations in the previous chapter from the minutes of faculty meetings at the University of Tulsa and The Price of Prestige 143 TCU show, and indirectly. Stakeholder panel feedback, however, suggests that decision makers might not be explicitly aware of the connection, of what is hidden in their mindset.
There are methods to increase awareness, however. For example, Pfeffer (2005) documents an approach, called the responsibility approach, an exercise where decision makers get to see both sides of their decisions, and the associated emotions, through a responsibility lens and a victim lens. Additionally, Mezias et al. (2001) recommended a facilitated process to uncover the more hidden aspects of cognitive processes and assumptions in mental models. Such approaches are aimed at making decision makers aware and more overtly conscious of their mental maps, in this case the presence of prestige seeking strategies and their demands on resources at the time of deciding next year’s prices. Clearly, it is important for the public and regulators to keep the pressure on college and university decision makers for awareness of the socially and economically negative impacts of prestige seeking and higher tuition, but pressure alone will not change interpretation.
A change in interpretation must follow from attention. The Huff et al. (2000) model shows that this rarely happens until organizational performance changes and stress levels rise. Some of the measures used to compile USNWR rankings change more slowly than other indicators. These indicators are unlikely to deliver a performance shock.
Examples of slower changing measures might include graduation and retention rates. A shortfall in projected or actual enrollment of freshmen, or an over-commitment of institutional aid to attract the desired class profile, would be a major performance change that could occur in a year. This phenomenon appears to be affecting smaller less The Price of Prestige 144 prestigious colleges first, but higher-ranked national colleges are not immune to its potential.
Stress levels from performance shortfalls must rise until they overcome organizational inertia. Steffens and Lettice (2013) identified two types of inertia: resource inertia and routine inertia. In organizational fields that are opaque, according to Steffens and Lettice (2013), defined as closed, highly isolated or highly institutionalized (like higher education), managers will lack sensitivity to threats and experience both resource and rigidity inertia. Repeatedly setting tuition through the same process, starting with budgeting working groups or overseen by an institutional priorities committee, might be of routine inertia. Such groups or committees might present a context for decision- making that is more focused inwardly on demands of member-stakeholders for additional resources, especially among schools and departments represented in such committees, and less on a scan of the external environment. As internal documents (meeting minutes) gathered as part of the content analysis suggest, the same committees, comprised of internal stakeholders also decided the funding for compensation increases as part of the process for deciding tuition increases. A more top-down decision-making process periodically might introduce a perspective more focused on efficiency. A greater student voice in the process might also bring a different perspective to the decision. Although the assumption is made that stakeholder employees of nonprofit organizations are altruistic, the assumption must be confirmed.
Routine tasks are less complex cognitively than those that are nonroutine. This would also be true for problems that are “analyzable” as opposed to those that are more ambiguous and uncertain (Schneider & Angelmar, 1990). If a proposed tuition increase is analyzed as the way to balance income and expense, it might be harder to see the decision The Price of Prestige 145 as a strategic decision. For more routine decisions, there would be less discussion and greater consensus about the cognitive model and the decision (Schneider & Angelmar,
1990). For more strategic decisions, leaders should encourage dialog that surfaces assumptions and debate to enrich a group’s mental model as well as to preserve the differences between an individual’s model and the group’s.
Also contributing to inertia, where a scan of the external environment has been conducted, as an input into committee decision and as reported in the findings, comparisons are often made to aspirational peers and then only for tuition, not for the value of the degree. Broadening the set of competitors to include public universities and for profit universities might paint a different picture for decision makers and make them look beyond the single indicator of sticker price to graduates’ and society’s returns on investment.
Decision makers often use ineffective tactics (Nutt, 1993). One decision maker, a community college vice president of academic affairs identified three tactics or simple routines that administrators use to frame the annual tuition decision: (a) “Go with last year’s number plus a few percent,” (b) “Tie the figure to a group of peer institutions” (or aspirational peers), or (c) “Charge as much as we think we can get away with until students tell us with their feet” (Reed, 2012). To overcome simple routines such as the ones just described, Nutt (1993) suggested refocusing on the framing of a decision at the formulation stage of the decision process before the processes of selection and choice.
Three strategies that will expand the search for alternatives include (a) identifying concerns and claims on key stakeholders, (b) increasing the clarity of objectives, and
(c) using multiple perspectives (Nutt, 2004). The Price of Prestige 146 In summary, for managers, mental maps are generally a source of stability and are notoriously hard to change. Change must begin with an awareness of how mental models and especially prestige seeking in mental maps affect decision making and must be followed by the construction of a different interpretation of the data being presented.
Change will not occur just because of awareness. Lastly, setting tuition must be viewed as a strategic, rather than a tactical or routine, decision.
Implications of Emerging Trends
Of course, the influence of prestige in decision makers’ mental maps is one force in the complex system surrounding tuition decisions. Although the absolute level of tuition increases at many private nonprofit universities has moderated from the 2004–
2008 period, the real rate of increase—the absolute rate less inflation—remains in the historical range of 2–3 percent. A press release such as that of Boston University (Jahkne,
2014), justifying its 3.9 percent increase recognized the need to control costs and plauded itself for setting a tuition increase that, on average over the last five years one of the lowest among its peers. The press release leaves out the important qualifier that this increase is still 2% higher than the increase in consumer prices in 2013. Prestige seeking continues and sticker prices continue to rise faster than inflation. The implication of this trend is that earning a degree at a private nonprofit university continues to become less affordable and more out of reach to able students from many segments of society in the
United States.
Meanwhile, the discount rate or the difference between the “sticker price” and the average (mean) price has increased to a new high of 45% (Pullaro Davis, 2013). This study also reports that 87% of college freshmen are now getting some form of institutional aid or discount (and as a corollary, the number of full pay students is getting The Price of Prestige 147 smaller). The implication of this trend is that the increase in resources allocated to increases in aid will be equal the increase in gross tuition; therefore, there will be no increase in net revenue. The researcher also observed that only colleges that can build other sources of revenue and use them to subsidize undergraduate education would be able to continue this strategy. Building other sources of revenue is not necessarily a prestige-seeking strategy; therefore, such revenue-building strategies are not reported as findings of this study. The researcher observed from the documents reviewed and from her professional experience that sources of revenue that colleges are currently seeking to build include (a) endowments designated to be used for scholarships, (b) the number of graduate and professional programs such as law schools where little or no difference exists between sticker price and net tuition, (c) the number of students in schools of continuing education also where little difference exists between sticker price and net tuition, and (d) the number of transfer students who, because they cannot enhance the admissions selectivity of a USNWR cohort or a Department of Education graduation rate, might also not receive institutional assistance with their tuition (Ehrenberg, 2005;
McPherson & Shapiro, 1998). However, market expansion in these areas eventually has limits, too.
To address the affordability of higher education, the main solution proposed by the current federal government administration is to establish a “rating” system that would inform prospective students about “best value”. The rating system would also underpin new policy varying the levels of federally funded and administered grants and loans according to a university’s rating (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2013).
According to a poll conducted by the Gallup Organization on behalf of Inside Higher Ed, most college presidents do not believe that the ratings will help lower the cost of college The Price of Prestige 148 to students (Jaschik, 2013). Although called ratings, experts see the new system as a ranking (Espinosa, Crandall, & Tukibayeva, 2014), replete with externally imposed peer groupings. This has caused renewed scholarly interest in the large and largely negative effect of rankings on institutional behavior and their moderate to low effect on consumer choice (Espinosa et al., 2014; Hillman, n.d.).
The proposal for a ratings systems managed by the federal government has also renewed the debate on the lack of measurability of quality in higher education. Currently price or tuition serves as a proxy for an unknown quality. Despite SAT and ACT scores being universally accepted as the quality measure for incoming freshmen, no equivalent universally accepted measure of student quality yet exists for the time when those students complete their undergraduate degrees. The Collegiate Learning Assessment
(CLA) is one test that might fill that gap. The main advantage of the CLA as a measure of undergraduate program quality is that it is not domain-specific. It applies to all undergraduate students. Its purpose is to measure a college student’s growth while in college in critical thinking, problem solving, reasoning, writing, and the ability to critique and make arguments. The main disadvantage today is that the results of the CLA are shared only with the university where the student test taker is enrolled. The test’s sponsoring organization does not publish individual or collective results. Additionally, the test faces challenges to its construct validity from academia, and some policy advisors prefer to let the market be the judge of accountability as measured by what buyers
(students or their parents) are willing to pay (Klein, Benjamin, Shavelson, & Bolus,
2007). In the researcher’s opinion, if this trend to develop a broadly acceptable measure of educational quality that can replace tuition as a proxy measure succeeds, it will be a benefit because it would support the emergence of educational quality as a stronger The Price of Prestige 149 metric in decision makers’ mental maps that could possibly supplant prestige. If, as seems more likely, institutions design and implement counterproductive strategies aimed solely at changing their reported performance on a measured item (e.g., Gioia & Corley,
2002), it is hard to predict whether the effect on tuition will be positive or negative.
There is a positive sign that some colleges are breaking with the current industry recipe. The New York Times reported several colleges moving to a “net” price model
(Lewin, 2013). In a net price model, colleges reduce the sticker price by eliminating discounts. A discount is the difference between the sticker price and the price a particular student pays. A student who is awarded an institutional grant pays less than the sticker price. An institutional grant, (either merit aid or need-based aid) which is not funded from a restricted source is a discount. Adopting a net price approach recognizes prospective students’ concerns about affordability. Universities that adopt a net price policy are showing that they want to break from the traditional strategy of setting tuition “up there with the ivies” (Lewin, 2013, para 7), and that they are confident that they can attract appropriately qualified students without using institutional aid.
The cognitive strategic group of for-profit universities has grown over the last 10 years to constitute formidable competition in many geographies and disciplines. The work of Kondra and Hinings (1998), discussed in the literature review chapter, described high-performing, low-fit organizations, which they termed renegades, as having identified opportunities outside the normal institutional logic. For-profit universities might be considered renegades with a different institutional logic because they design and deliver bachelors’ and professional masters’ degrees incorporating the latest research from scholars at nonprofit and public universities without extensive involvement of their faculty in conducting scholarly research (Ruch, 2001). For-profits pride themselves on The Price of Prestige 150 their open admissions (Ruch, 2001), and have typically offered little institutional aid
Christensen et al., 2011). Perhaps also recognizing that a higher tuition signals a higher quality (but also not recognizing that trustworthiness theory will penalize them), for- profit universities set their tuition somewhere between the levels of public universities and private nonprofit universities, at levels they think the market will bear (Ruch, 2001) and this has limited their disruptive impact on the higher education market.
At the industry level, Oliver (1992) identified pressures that might lead to the deinstitutionalization of a field including functional forces that change economic utility.
A primary implication of the ever higher price of higher education is that its economic utility (in the language of human capital theory, the return in the educational investment) will drop, with diminishing marginal returns to a bachelor’s degree as graduates find themselves employed in occupations that do not require a such education (Baum, Ma, &
Payea, 2013). While the return on an undergraduate degree is still positive, recent research shows that the return varies by program of study and by career choice of the student upon graduation (Oreopoulos & Petronijevik, 2013). Speculatively, one possible implication of this trend is a shrinkage in the numbers of individuals who perceive a bachelor’s degree to be of value as a private good. As argued in Chapter 1, if fewer citizens attend college, society will lose some of the benefits of an educated citizenry as a public good.
Some influential observers of the field of higher education believe that online education can help solve the affordability problem, a problem that has achieved “iconic status” (Bowen, 2013, p. 18). Indeed, it is almost impossible to talk about higher education in the first two decades of the 21st century without talking about the rapid rate of adoption of online education and, more recently, Massively Open Online Courses or The Price of Prestige 151 MOOC’s. Students can now choose between courses and programs where the educational content is delivered 100% online, through low-residency, hybrid, or blended courses, or through classroom courses. Traditional classroom courses are commonly online supported, so students can find information such as a syllabus, can retrieve course materials, can turn in assignments online, and can view grades. For students, going to school online means they can begin, or continue, to work and earn at the same time as they achieve an education. Without wages forgone, the total cost to the student of going to school, is less than a traditional classroom program and the return on investment is, therefore, higher so students might be prepared to pay more than for the equivalent but less convenient classroom education. On the other hand, if universities set tuition according to cost, it might be expected that because online programs do not use costly and scarce classrooms they might have lower tuition than their 100% classroom counterparts. A second reason for expecting a lower price for online learning would be that a significant (but declining) proportion of academic leaders yet believes that online learning is lower quality: nearly 26% of academic leaders surveyed by Allen and Seaman
(2013) thought that learning outcomes from online courses are inferior or substantially inferior to classroom courses. In practice, universities have tended to set tuition for online courses and programs at the same levels as for classroom programs, leading to a perhaps unconscious conundrum: Are universities unwilling to signal that quality is lower online or are they denying that higher prices signal higher quality? Bowen (2013) supported the thesis that online learning would be a part of the solution to the affordability problem, but cautioned that it would take changes to “some of our mind sets and decision making processes” (p. 43). The Price of Prestige 152 Although higher education continues to innovate, the innovations do not yet seem to have widespread effect on the business model and the dominant logic, or to change leaders’ mindsets and mental maps, and it certainly does not yet seem to have changed approaches to setting tuition.
Limitations
There are some limitations to the conclusions of this dissertation. Like the theoretical lens of managerial cognition, the research methodology for this study, content analysis is descriptive, not prescriptive. With content analysis, researchers quantify and analyze the presence, meanings, and relationships of words and concepts, then make inferences about the messages, the writers, or the audience (Weber, 1990). Content analysis cannot be employed to assess motives. The analysis conducted for this study was conceptual and relational, looking for the coexistence of concepts within a text. A further limitation of content analysis lies in its assumption that communicators intend meaning from co-existence of concepts. Content analysis establishes an association but does not prove that the association is causal. The kind of data needed, and in particular the extent of data needed to create, first, within-case, and then cross-case causal maps would typically require access to decision makers (Miles et al. 2014).
Even with word counts or frequencies, the results of content analysis are open to interpretation. Word-based analysis is an imperfect methodology. It assumes that the frequency with which a word is used is an indication of its cognitive centrality, and that the juxtaposition of words can be taken as an indicator of the mental connection between the concepts (Huff, 1990, p. 17). However, context and content are both important.
Krippendorff (1989) cautions that, in content analysis, conclusions about the magnitude of an effect cannot be drawn from its frequency. In this study, the researcher focused on a The Price of Prestige 153 single question about a potential association between prestige seeking and tuition increases in the mental models of decision makers. The researcher found varying strengths of association but only for some universities in the sample. The researcher did not seek to identify whether the association was more or less prevalent in subgroups of universities in the sample. It could be that those groups just outside the top 50 more overtly demonstrate prestige seeking to move up into the top 50, or that those with a stronger social identity and mission, stemming, for example, from a Catholic religious affiliation show a lesser degree of interest in such self-enhancement. Nor did the study seek to determine whether the behaviors of universities for which there is evidence of an association between prestige seeking and tuition increase affect others. These limitations of the study limit its generalization.
Areas for Future Research
The researcher has identified a number of opportunities for further research.
Longitudinal studies of change in an industry, and the organizations within it, would be helpful for understanding phenomena such as why some organizations can break away from mimetic forces; the order in which mimetic, normative, and coercive forces appear to weaken their effect on an organization; and the process of change among cognitive strategic groups. Studies of changing mental maps, dominant logics and industry recipes could do more to address what environmental, organizational, or individual specific factors promote change and what promotes inertia. The transition from awareness or attention to reinterpretation is a transition point worthy of further study.
The dynamics of decision making especially at the upper level, the level of the
Board of Trustees, is worthy of further and direct study to understand how board characteristics, such as the proportion of trustees who are major donors, major potential The Price of Prestige 154 donors or effective fundraisers, affects decision making. Such a study should ask about the balance between independent trustees with no former university affiliation and those with some affiliation or stake in the organization’s pursuit of prestige. Other areas of management study have shown how group structure and composition affects decision making. The Association of Governing Boards (AGB) publishes nonscholarly (not peer- reviewed) information such as surveys of college president satisfaction with their boards and a paper. Eckel (2013) reported the responses of university presidents to a 2013 AGB survey about their Board’s effectiveness: Eighty percent of presidents reported their boards were constructive in addressing issues of tuition and cost, but 79% cited giving more financially as their top wish for a more effective board. The AGB also published a series of papers by the executive director of the Delta Cost Project on strengthening the
Board’s capacity for overseeing college costs. Wellman (2008) identified the operational orientation of boards, especially in the context of approving budgets, to be a significant issue:
In today’s competitive environment, a majority of governing boards of colleges and universities manifest an emerging sense of the strategic issues facing higher education, but the preponderance of boards and senior leadership still behave in a primarily operational manner in the area of finance. The imperatives of accountability, transparency, and effectiveness call for more strategically oriented boards and committees, yet even strategically aware boards regularly revert to bottom-line thinking in financial monitoring—that is, operational oversight of the budget and the balancing of aggregated revenues and expenditures. (p. 5)
This data points to presidents valuing their trustees more for their immediate fundraising contributions, while the area of greatest need is in helping this governance entity and its members move from an operational to a strategic perspective on university finances. A valuable area of study would identify the characteristics and composition of The Price of Prestige 155 boards of trustees that are the most effective in guiding the strategy and strategic financial performance of an organization for the long term.
The trouble with strongly held cognitive groups is that they tend to be stable in the face of environmental change as Porac et al. (2011) found when they revisited the
Scottish knitwear community that they had originally reported on in 1989. A cognitive group addresses bounded rationality by limiting the scope of environmental scanning that senior organizational administrators need to conduct. This works well under conditions of industry stability, but less so, as the Scottish fully fashioned knitwear example demonstrated (Porac at al., 2011), when the environment is changing. Management researchers have not specified or investigated a measure of what constitutes “strongly held” in either legitimacy groups or cognitive strategic groups. A longitudinal study of an evolving industry, such as higher education in which multiple cognitive groups, some more strongly held than others, would add value. Peripheral to reported results, but potentially interesting for further study, the results also provide further data about the congruence of legitimacy based groups (as established by USNWR rankings) and cognitive strategic groups.
The majority of documents retrieved inform us more about how senior administrators frame and communicate tuition increases, making sense of their decisions to internal and external stakeholders, than they do about the inputs or antecedents in the decision process. In the model of strategic cognition developed by Narayan et al. (2011), sense making is one of three important processes in both strategy formulation and strategy implementation. If future researchers can secure access to decision makers and observe the processes and the dialog among multiple levels of participants, they will be The Price of Prestige 156 able to apply case study methodology to create a richer set of data through which to view how prestige seeking, through managerial cognition, affects tuition increases.
Summary
Through this study, the researcher contributes to scholarship in three main areas.
First, the study provides a management perspective to understanding the problem of the rate of increase in tuition and the increasing unaffordability of higher education by making decision makers aware of the content of their mental maps and how those maps influence their thinking at the time of decision making. Prior research on the subject of ever-rising tuition, such as the cost disease theory, did not address the issue through management theory and, therefore, provided management with no insight on to how to address the issue.
Second, regarding the content analysis, the researcher found a complex situation with numerous constituencies involved in the decision, including, almost universally, the board of trustees in an approval role. Similar to the results of studies that have identified prestige-seeking strategies through other theoretical lenses (or no theoretical lens) and other data sets, regarding the content analysis, the researcher also found widespread evidence of prestige seeking strategies and of enhancement of prestige as the organization’s objective.
Third, in this study, the researcher extended the use of content analysis to documents that universities “publish” on their websites. The study was not restricted to a single type of document such as an annual report or strategic plan. The search strategy was very simple and direct: the document selected for inclusion in the coding and analysis had to contain the words “tuition increase” or a phrase of similar meaning. This search strategy turned up a wide array of different types of documents, such as press The Price of Prestige 157 releases communicating the decision outcome and meeting minutes describing the context of the decision about tuition increases that also included content about prestige seeking.
As the findings of this study have described, prestige seeking especially as measured by an improved USNWR ranking is relatively widespread among private nonprofit universities although e exceptions do exist. The Association of Governing
Boards estimated that two thirds of boards of governors are briefed on their university’s performance in the latest rankings (Levin, 2002). Rankings are scorned, manipulated, and criticized for their lack of validity, while the data submitted are occasionally found to have been falsified (Levin, 2002), but no industry-sponsored alternatives have become as popular. Despite this, scholars have assessed rankings to have more influence on institutional behavior than on the behavior of their intended audience, prospective students, their parents, and their information needs (Sauder & Espeland, 2009; Espinosa et al., 2014). This study sought to understand whether prestige seeking is present in managers’ mental maps when they make tuition decisions. The results of the content analysis of documents from university websites support the potential association. The researcher hopes that this study will cause all participants in the tuition increase decision—faculty, administrators, and trustees—to change the way they think about tuition increases.
“We need to change our thinking. Without changing our patterns of thought we will not be able to solve the problems we created with our current patterns of thought”-
Attributed to Albert Einstein. The Price of Prestige 158 REFERENCES
Abbott, W. F. (1974). Prestige and goals in American universities. Social Forces, 52, 401–407. doi:10.1093/sf/52.3.401
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19, 728–755. doi:10.5465/AMR.1994.9412190217
Abrahamson, E., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Attentional homogeneity in industries: The effect of discretion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 513–532. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199711)18:1+<513::aid-job905>3e3.3.c;2-#
Anand, V., Joshi, M., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). An organizational identity approach to strategic groups. Organization Science, 24, 571–590. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0752
Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2008). Explaining increases in higher education costs. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 268–295. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0004
Arrow, K. J., & Hahn, F. H. (1971). General competitive analysis. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.
Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F., & Schweizer, T. (2000). Making and measuring reputations: The research ranking of European business schools. Long Range Planning, 33, 621–650. doi:10. 1016/s0024-6301(00)00064-9
Barman, E. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of non-profit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80, 1191–1222. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0020
Barney, J. B. (2002). Strategic management: From informed conversation to academic discipline. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 53–57. doi:10.5465/ame.2002.7173521
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 15–36. doi:10.1002/smj.4250131004
Barreto, I., & Baden-Fuller C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behavior, legitimacy based groups and performance consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1559–1578. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00620.x The Price of Prestige 159 Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2010). US News and World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education, 116, 163–183. doi:10.1086/649437
Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52, 3–23. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9185-0
Basdeo, D. K, Smith, K. G., Grimm C. M., Rindova V. P., & Derfus P. J. (2006). The impact of market actions on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1205–1219. doi:10.1002/smj.556
Baum, S., & Ma, J., (2011). Trends in college pricing (Trends in Higher Education Series). Washington, DC: College Board. Retrieved from http://advocacy. collegeboard.org
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2013). Education pays. (Trends in Higher Education Series). Washington, DC: College Board. Retrieved from https://trends. collegeboard.org
Baumol, W. J., & Bowen, W. G. (1966), Performing arts: The economic dilemma. New York, NY: The Twentieth Century Fund.
Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change. Sociological Theory, 28, 150–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9558.2010.01369.x
Ben-Ner, A. (2002). The shifting boundaries of the mixed economy and the future of the nonprofit sector. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73, 5–40. doi:10.1111/1467-8292.00184
Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 563–589. doi:10.2307/2666962
Bitektine, A. (2011). Towards a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151–179. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.55662572
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bowen, H. R. (1980). The costs of higher education: How much do colleges and universities spend per student and how much should they spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, W. G. (2013). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The Price of Prestige 160 Bowman, N., & Bastedo, M. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of US News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415–436. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9129-8
Boyd, B. K, Bergh, D. D., & Ketchen, D. J (2010). Reconsidering the reputation- performance relationship: A resource-based view. Journal of Management, 36, 620–632. doi:10.1177/0149206308328507
Breneman, D. W. (1970). An economic theory of Ph.-D. production: The case at Berkeley. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED055568)
Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in US higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Briner, R., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), Oxford handbook of evidence- based management (pp. 112–129). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brint, S., Riddle, M., & Hanneman, R. (2006). Reference sets, identities and aspirations in a complex organizational field: The case of American four-year colleges and universities. Sociology of Education, 79, 229–252. doi:10.1177/003804070607900303
Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69, 239–264. doi:10.1177/000312239406900205
Carey, K. (2008). We need to sever the iron bond between price and the perceived quality of colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(25), A38–A39.
Carley, K. M. (1990). Content analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Pergamon Press. Retrieved from http://casos.cs.cmu.edu
Carley, K. M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 533–558. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199711) 18:1+<533::aid-job906>3.0.co;2-3
Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Social forces, 70, 601–636. doi:10.1093/sf/70.3.601
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Retrieved from the Center for American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress. org
Clotfelter, C. T. (1996). Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The Price of Prestige 161 Conrad, C. F., & Eagan, D. J. (1989). The prestige game in American higher education. Thought and Action, 5(1), 5–16.
Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562–587. doi:10.2307/2392644
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D’Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Crisis and the content of managerial communications: A study of the focus of the attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 634–657. doi:10.2307/2393512
Dartmouth Office of Public Affairs, (2009). Dartmouth announces budget-reconciliation plan [Press release]. Retrieved from http://now.dartmouth.edu/
Desrochers, D. M., & Wellman, J. V. (2011). Trends in college spending, 1999–2009: Where does it come from? Where does it go to? Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project.
Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024–1039. doi:10.2307/256722
Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-0266(199902)20: 2%3c147;2-q.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of the differences between organizational legitimacy and organization reputation. Journal of Management Studies 42, 329–360. doi:10/1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x
Devinney, T. M., & Siegal, D. S. (2012). Perspectives on the art and science of management scholarship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 6–11. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0001
Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57, 136–157. doi:10.1111/1468-2273.00239
Dill, D. D. (2005, April). The public good, the public interest, and public higher education. Conference on recapturing the “public” in public and private higher education. Symposium conducted at City University of New York, NY.
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2004). Is there a global definition of academic quality? A cross- national analysis of university ranking systems. Retrieved from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Public Policy for Academic Quality website: http://ppaq.web.unc.edu The Price of Prestige 162 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in institutional fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101
Doucet, L., & Jehn, K. A. (1997). Analyzing harsh words in a sensitive setting: American expatriates in communist China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 559–582. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199711)18:1+<559::aid-job907>3.0.co;2- h
Doyle, W. R. (2010). Changes in institutional aid, 1992–2003: The evolving role of merit aid. Research in Higher Education, 51, 789–810. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9177-0
Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 5–34. doi:10.1177/1094428106289252
Eckel, P. (2013). What presidents really think about their boards. Trusteeship, 21(6). Retrieved from http://agb.org
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 295–340. doi:10.1080/19416520.2013.769318
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The US News and World Report rankings and competition. The Review of Higher Education, 26, 145–162. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0032
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2005). Method or madness? Inside the US News & World Report college rankings. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED482469)
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476. doi:10.2307/2393938
Erdener, C. B., & Dunn, C. P. (1990). Content analysis. In A. Huff (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought (pp. 291–300). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Espinosa, L. L., Crandall, J. R., & Tukibayeva, M. (2014). Rankings, institutional behavior and college and university choice: Framing the national dialog of Obama’s ratings plan. Retrieved from the American Council on Education website: http://www.acenet.edu The Price of Prestige 163 Financial Review Committee of the Faculty Senate of Tulsa University. (2011, April 29). Summary of informational session with President Upham and administration Representatives [Memorandum]. Retrieved from http://www.utulsa.edu
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258. doi:10.2307/256324
Frank, R. H. (2001). Higher education: The ultimate winner takes all market? In M. Devlin & J. Meyerson (Eds.), Forum futures: Exploring the future of higher education, 2000 Papers (pp. 3–7). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freeman, D. (2012, Spring). Students are asking: Why does MIT have a yearly tuition increase? [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://resources.mit.edu
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x
Fugate, W. R. (2012). Alike but different: How three private liberal arts colleges communicate prestige, legitimacy and differentiation during the student recruitment process. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Garvin, D. A. (1980). The economics of university behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gates, G. S. (1997). Isomorphism, homogeneity and rationalism in university retrenchment. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 253–275. doi:10.1353/rhe.1997.0001
Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 569–594. doi:10.1005/smj.899
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 113–137. doi:10.2307/2666981
Gavetti, G., & Rivkin, J. W. (2007). On the origin of strategy: Action and cognition over time. Organization Science, 18, 420–439. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0282
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31, 347–365. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.20208685
Gilroy, P. J. (2003). The impact of pricing and affordability strategies on enrollment and revenues at selected American private institutions of higher education. [Doctoral The Price of Prestige 164 dissertation]. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 3119649)
Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 107–120. doi:10.5465/amle.2002.7373729
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403. doi:10.2307/2393936
Glaeser, E. L., & Shleifer, A. (2001). Not-for-profit entrepreneurs. Journal of Public Economics, 81, 99–115. doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(00)00130-4
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalized ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 179–209. doi:10.1353/rhe.2013.0000
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London, UK: Sage.
Greenstone, M., Looney, A., Patashnik, J., & Yu, M. (2013). Thirteen economic facts about social mobility and the role of education. Retrieved from The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution website: http://www.brookings.edu
Greve, H. R., & Taylor, A. (2000). Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: Shifts in organizational cognition and search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 54–80. doi:10.2307/2666979
Gunderson, G. R. (2009). Demand, funding, and prestige: Driving the use of undergraduate tuition discounting in research 1 institutions. [Doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3366666)
Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of non-profit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901.
Hansmann, H. B. (1987) Economic theories of non-profit organizations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (pp. 27–42). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 637–661. doi:10.1177/001316101219 69451 The Price of Prestige 165 Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 472–500. doi:10.2307/2393735
Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 593–627. doi:10.2307/2393338
Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education. In V. Climent, F. Michavila. & M. Ripolles (Eds.), Los rankings univeritarios: Mitos y realidades. Madrid, Spain: Tecnos Editorial, S.A.
Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. (2007). Testing the strength of the iron cage: A meta- analysis of institutional theory. Unpublished manuscript, Erasmus Institute of Management report series research in management ERS 2007-007-ORG, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 61–85. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.34361835
Hillman, N. (n.d.). College ratings: What lessons can we learn from other sectors? Retrieved from the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment website: http://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org
Hodgkinson, G. P. (1997). The cognitive analysis of competitive structures: A review and critique. Human Relations, 50, 625–654. doi:10.1023/a;1016948120927
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Wright, G. (2002). Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: Learning from failure. Organization Studies, 23, 949–977. doi:10.1177/017084060202300103
Hoover, E. (2011, October 13). Syracuse, selectivity, and “old measures.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.comHsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Önçüler, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 103–114. doi:10.2307/3649106
Huff, A. (1990). Mapping strategic thought. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Huff, A. S., Huff, J. O., & Barr, P. S. (2000). When firms change direction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Inglesias, K. (2014). The price of prestige: A study of the impact of striving behavior on the expenditure patterns of American colleges and universities. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. The Price of Prestige 166 Jahkne, A. (2014-3-17). BU’s tuition, room and board to rise 3.7 percent. [Press release]. Retrived from http://www.bu.edu
James, E. (1983). How nonprofits grow: A model. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2, 350–365. doi:10.2307/3324446
James, E. (1990). Decision processes and priorities in higher education. In S. Hoenack & E. Collins (Eds.), The economics of American universities: Management operations and fiscal environment (pp. 77–106). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Jaquette, O. (2013). Why do colleges become universities? Mission drift and the enrollment economy. Research in Higher Education, 54, 514–543. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9283-x
Jaschik, S. (2013, December 16). Dubious of Obama plan. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com
Jencks, C., & Reisman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Piscatway, NJ: Transaction.
Jenny, H. H. (1968). Pricing and optimum size in a non-profit institution: The university. American Economic Review, 58(2), 270–283.
Jensen, M., & Roy, A. (2008). Staging exchange partner choices: When do status and reputation matter? Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 495–516. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.32625985
Johnson, D. R., & Hoopes, D. G. (2003). Managerial cognition, sunk costs, and the evolution of industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1057–1068. doi:10.1002/smj.320
Kabanoff, B., & Brown, S. (2008). Knowledge structures of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders: Content, structure, stability, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 149–171. doi:10.1002/smj.644
Kabanoff, B., & Keegan, J. (2007). Studying strategic cognition by content analysis of annual reports: A validation involving firm innovation. In R. Chapman (Ed.), Managing Our Intellectual and Social Capital: 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference, 4–7 December (pp. 1–14), Sydney, Australia.
Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1075–1104. doi:10.2307/256621
Kaplan, S. (2011). Research in cognition and strategy: Reflections on two decades of progress and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 665–695. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6496.2010.00983.x The Price of Prestige 167 Kaplan, S., Murray, F., & Henderson, R.M. (2003). Discontinuities and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 203–233. doi:10.1093/icc/12.2.203
Keith, B. (1999). The institutional context of departmental prestige in American higher education. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 409–445. doi:10.1002/00028312036003409
Kelley, S. (2012). Board approves tuition and fees for 2012/13 [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.news.cornell.edu
Kerr, C (1991). The new race to be Harvard or Berkley or Stanford. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 23, 8–15. doi:10.1080/00091383.1991.9937687
Kim, D. (2013). Cognitive communities and legitimacy based groups: The role of external categorization on cognitive similarity. Academy of Strategy Management Journal, 12(2), 1–29.
Klein, S., Benjamin, R., Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (2007). The Collegiate Learning Assessment facts and fantasies. Evaluation Review, 31(5), 415–439. doi:10.1177/0193841x07303318
Kondra, A. Z., & Hinings, C. R. (1998). Organizational diversity and change in institutional theory. Organization Studies, 19, 743–767. doi:10.1177/017084069801900502
Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61, 812–836. doi:10.2307/2096455
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Validity in content analysis. In E. Mochmann (Ed.), Computerstrategien fiir die Koji1ikationsanalyse (pp. 69–112). Frankfurt/New York, NY: Campus. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.eduKrippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw et al. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication, Vol. 1 (pp. 403–407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Retrieved from http://books.google.com
Kruhly, L. L. (2012, February 17). University of Pennsylvania Board of Trustees stated meeting, Friday, February 17, 2012 [Minutes]. Retrieved from http://www. archives.upenn.edu
Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A., & Umphress, E. (2001). Emulation in academia: Balancing structure and identity. Organization Science, 12, 312–330. doi:1047-7039/01 /1203/0312/$05.(k) The Price of Prestige 168 Labianca, G., Fairbank, J.F.,Andrevski, G., & Parzen, M. (2009). Striving towards the future: Aspiration-performance discrepancies and planned organizational change.
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37, 153–184. doi:10.1177/0149206310390963
Lawson, R. A., & Zerkle, A. (2006). Price discrimination in college tuition: An empirical case study. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 5(1), 1–7.
Leavitt, H. J. (1954). A note on some experimental findings about the meanings of price. The Journal of Business, 27, 205–210. doi:10.1086/294039
Leslie, L. L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanations. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 187–212. doi:10.2307/2943911
Levin, D. J. (2002). The uses and abuses of the “US News” Rankings. Priorities. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED467769)
Levine, A. (2001). Higher education as a mature industry. In P. Altbach, P. Gumport, & D. Johnson (Eds.), In defense of American education (pp. 38–58). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Lewin, T. (2013, December 25). Getting out of the discount game, small colleges lower the price. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Lewis, O. (2006, February 16). Tuition hike results from many factors. The Brown and White. Retrieved from jsaw.lib.lehigh.edu
Lieberman, M. B., & Asaba, S. (2006). Why do firms imitate each other? The Academy of Management Review, 31, 366–385. doi:10.2307/20159207
Low, E. (2003, October 24). Undergrad tuition up again. Campus Times. Retrieved from http://www.laverne.edu
Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 155–174. doi:10/1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb65800.x
Ma, J., & Baum, S. (2012). Trends in tuition and fees, enrollment, and state appropriations for higher education by state (Trends in Higher Education Series). Washington, DC: College Board. Retrieved from https://trends.collegeboard.org
Malani, A., Philipson, T., & David, G. (2003). Theories of firm behavior in the non-profit sector: A synthesis and empirical evaluation. In E. L. Glaeser (Ed.), The governance of not-for-profit organizations (pp. 181–215). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org The Price of Prestige 169 Martinez, R. J., & Dacin, M. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces: Combining transactions costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management, 25, 75–96. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80004-x
Martins, L. L. (2005). A model of the effects of reputational rankings in organizational change. Organization Science, 16, 701–720. doi:10.2307.25146005
Mause, K. (2009). Too much competition in higher education? Some conceptual remarks on the excessive-signalling hypothesis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68, 1107–1133. doi:10.1111/j.1536-1750.2009.00663.x
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 105–114.
McGee, J., & Thomas, H. (1986). Strategic groups: Theory, research and taxonomy. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 141–160. doi:10.1002/smj.4250070204
McGee, J., Thomas, H., & Pruett, M. (1995). Strategic groups and the analysis of market structure and industry dynamics. British Journal of Management, 6, 257 –270. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.1995.tb00099.x
McGuire, J. W., Richman, M. L., Daly, R. F., & Jorjani, S. (1988). The efficient production of “reputation” by prestige research universities in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 59, 365–389. doi:10.2307/1981917
McNamara, G., Deephouse, D. L., & Luce, R. A. (2003). Competitive positioning within and across a strategic group structure: The performance of core, secondary, and solitary firms. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 161–181. doi:10.1002/smj.289
McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1994). Merit aid: Students, institutions, and society. Retrieved from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education website: http://www. cpre.org
McPherson, M. S., & Winston, G. C. (1993). The economics of cost, price, and quality in US higher education. In M. McPherson, M. Shapiro, & G. Winston (Eds.), Paying the piper: Productivity, incentives and financing in US higher education (pp. 69–99). Anne Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the US News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45, 443–461. doi:10.1023/b.rihe.0000032324.46716.f4
Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in Higher Education, 48, 633–667. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9045-0 The Price of Prestige 170 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. doi:10.1086/231174
Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mezias, J., Grinyer, P., & Guth, W. D. (2001). Changing collective cognition: A process model for strategic change. Long Range Planning, 34, 71–95. doi:10.1016/s0023- 6301(00)00096-0
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, E. (1975). Status goods and luxury taxes. Journal of Economics and Sociology, 34, 141–154. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1975.tb01171.x
Miller, D., & Chen, M. J. (1994). Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the US airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 1–23. doi:10.2307/2393492
Mintzberg, H., & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 21–30.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive mimetic and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 653–683. doi:10.2307/2667051
Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). The impact of U.S. News and World Report college rankings on admissions outcomes and pricing policies at selective private institutions. (NBER Working Paper 7227). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu
Morphew, C. C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of US colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 243–269.
Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher education in Europe, XXVII(4), 491–506.
Moyer, R. C., & Kretlow, W. J. (1978). The resource allocation decision in US colleges and universities: Practice, problems and recommendations. Higher Education, 7, 35–46. doi:10.1007/bf00129789
Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 243–270. doi:10.1002/smj.576 The Price of Prestige 171 Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemmerer, B. (2011). The cognitive perspective in strategy: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 37, 305–351. doi:10.1177/0149206310383986
National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education, The. (1998). Straight talk about college costs and prices. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu
Ng, D., Westgren, R., & Sonka, S. (2009). Competitive blind spots in an institutional field. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 349–369. doi 10.1002/smj.741
Nutt, P. C. (1993). The formulation processes and tactics used in organizational decision making. Organization Science, 4, 226–251. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.2.226
Nutt, P. C. (2004). Expanding the search for alternatives during strategic decision- making. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 13–28. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.15268668
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179. doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563–588. doi:10.1177/017084069101300403
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustaining competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 697–713. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9%3C697::AID-SMJ909%3E3.0.CO;2- C
O’Meara, K., & Bloomgarden, A. (2011). The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. The Journal of the Professoriate, 4(1), 39–73.
O’Shaughnessy, B. (2014, February 18). Notre Dame tuition increase the same as previous year’s. [Press release]. Retrieved from http://news.nd.edu
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). The many moods of inter organizational imitation: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 375–398. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00233.x ‐
Oreopoulos, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2013). Making college worth it: A review of research on the returns to higher education (No. w19053). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Ortmann, A. (1996). Modem economic theory and the study of non-profit organizations: Why the twain shall meet. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 470–484. doi:10.1177/0899764096254005 The Price of Prestige 172 Osborne, J. D., Stubbart, C. I., & Ramaprasad, A. (2001). Strategic groups and competitive enactment: A study of dynamic relationships between mental models and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 435–454. doi:10.1002/smj.166
Perrow, C. (1961). Organizational prestige: Some functions and dysfunctions. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 335–341. doi:10.1086/222899
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Changing mental models: HR's most important task. Human Resource Management, 44, 123–128. doi:10.1002/hrm.20053
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school “business”: Some lessons from the US experience. (Research report No. 1855). Retrieved from the Social Science Research Network website: http://papers.ssrn.com
Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40, 287–315. doi:10.1177/0149206313498904
Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829-872. doi:10.1086/230091
Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status signals. A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 1, 224–240. doi:10.5465/amr.1990. 4308155
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (2002). Managing cognition and strategy: Issues, trends and future directions. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 165–181). London, UK: Sage.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397–416. doi:10.1111/j.1476-6486.1989.tb00731x
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2011). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 646–664. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00988.x
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, NY: The Free Press
Potter, W. J., & Levine Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284. doi:10.1080/009098899096365539‐ The Price of Prestige 173 Pullaro Davis, N. (2013, June). Demand drives discount rates. Business Officer Magazine, 46(11). Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org
Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 84, 544–568. doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0022
Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22, 48–79. doi:10.2307/256636
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895– 1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29–44. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150904
Rao, A. R. (2005). The quality of price as quality cue. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 401–405. doi:10.2307/30162389
Reed, M. (2012, June 5). What should a year of college cost? [blogpost]. Retrieved from http://suburbdad.blogspot.coml
Reger, R. K., & Huff, A. S. (1993). Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 103–123. doi:10.1002/smj.4250140203
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences or organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 1033–1049. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.19573108
Rivard, R. (2014, January 6). Syracuse, after refusing to play the rankings game, may care again. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com
Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of complex strategies. Management Science, 46, 824-844. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.6.824.11940
Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1077–1093. doi:10.1002/smj.274
Rose, D. C., & Sorensen, R. L. (1992). High tuition, financial aid, and cross- subsidization: Do needy students really benefit? Southern Economic Journal, 59, 66–76. doi:10.2307/1060385
Ruch, R. S. (2003). Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rusch, E. A., & Wilbur, C. (2007). Shaping institutional environments: The process of becoming legitimate. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 301–318. doi:10.1353/rhe.2007.0014 The Price of Prestige 174 St. John, E. P. (1992). Changes in pricing behavior during the 1980s: An analysis of selected case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 165-187. doi:10.2307/1982158
Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sanford, T. (2011). The prestige treadmill: Connections between prestige and revenue in higher education. [Doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3474799)
Sauder, M., Lynn, F., & Podolny, J. M. (2012). Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 267–283. doi:10.1146/anurev-doc- 071811-145503
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82. doi:10.1177/000312240907400104
Sauder, M., & Fine, G. A. (2008). Arbiters, entrepreneurs, and the shaping of business school reputations. Sociological Forum, 23, 699–723. doi:10.1111/j.1573- 7861.2008.00091.x
Schiff, J., & Weisbrod, B. (1991). Competition between for-profit and non-profit organizations in commercial markets. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62, 619–640. doi:10.1111/j.1467.8292.1991.tb01370.x
Schneider, S. C., & Angelmar, R. (1993). Cognition in organizational analysis: Who’s minding the store? Organization Studies, 14, 347–374. doi:10.1177/017084069301400302
Schwenk, C. R. (1988). The cognitive perspective on strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 41–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00021.x
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32. doi:10.2307/2392880.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 460–484). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scott, W. R. (2010, December). Higher education in America: An institutional field approach. Paper presented at the inaugural strategy session of Reform and Innovation in the Changing Ecology of Higher Education, conducted at the School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Selingo, J. (2014, February 17). From Tennessee, a solution for mission creep. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com The Price of Prestige 175 Seton Hall University. (2001, October 5, p. 9). Seton Hall University faculty senate meeting draft minutes of October 5 2001[Meeting minutes]. Retrieved from http://www.shu.edu
Shapiro, B. P. (1968). The psychology of pricing. Harvard Business Review, 46(4), 14–25.
Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 659–679. doi:10.2307/1881782
Shimizu, K., & Hitt, M. A. (2004). Strategic flexibility: Organizational preparedness to reverse ineffective strategic decisions. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 44–59. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.15268683
Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (1997). Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing. Human Relations, 50, 1361–1381. doi:10.1177/001872679705001102
Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 383–393. doi:10.1509/jmkr.2005. 42.4.410
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision making processes in administration organization (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Smelser, N. J. (2012). Dynamics of American universities. (Research and occasional paper series: CSHE.1.12). Retrieved from University of California, Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education website: http://cshe.berkeley.edu
Smith, J. B. (2012, May 6). Baylor 2012 still a work in progress a decade later. The Waco Tribune-Herald. Retrieved from https://www.baylor.edu
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Spencer, B., Peyrefitte, J., & Churchman, R. (2003). Consensus and divergence in perceptions of cognitive strategic groups: Evidence from the health care industry. Strategic Organization, 1, 203–230. doi:10.1177/1476127003001002306.
Spender, J. C. (1989). Industry recipes: An enquiry into the nature and sources of managerial judgment. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
St. Louis University. (2013, January 29). St. Louis University faculty senate minutes, January 29 2013 [Meeting minutes]. Retrieved from www.slu.edu
St. Mary’s University of Minnesota. (2013, February 15). Minutes of the February meeting of the Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota Board of Trustees, February 15, 2013 [Meeting minutes]. Retrieved from www.smumn.edu The Price of Prestige 176 Steffens, P., & Lettice, F. (2013). Eyes wide shut: The role of organizational field transparency for overcoming organizational inertia. Paper presented at the 35th DRUID Celebration Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(17), 137–146.
Stimpert, J. L., & Duhaime, I. M. (2008). Managerial cognition and strategic decision making in diversified firms. (Colorado College Working Paper 2008-1). Retrieved from the Social Sciences Research Network website: http://papers.ssrn.com
Still, M. C., & Strang, D. (2009). Who does an elite organization emulate? Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 58–89. doi:10.1298/asqu.2009.54.1.58
Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Lê, J. K. (2013). Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory. Strategic Organization, 11, 329–344. doi:10.1177/1476127013497618
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Sweitzer, K. V. (2008). The correlates of changes in prestige among American colleges and universities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3336131)
Taylor, P., Parker, K., Fry, R., & Cohn, D. (2011). Is college worth it? College presidents, public assess value, quality and mission of higher education. Retrieved from Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends website: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Living with myths: Undergraduate education in America. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 26, 28–32. doi:10.1080/00091383.1994.9938488
Texas Christian University. (2003). TCU faculty senate minutes, Thursday October 2, 2003 [Meeting minutes]. Retrieved from http://www.fsn.tcu.edu
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tiffany, F. G., & Ankrom, J. A. (1998). The competitive use of price discrimination by colleges. Eastern Economic Journal, 24(1), 99–110.
Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J-A, Parvinen, P., & Kallunki, J-P. (2005). Managerial cognition, action and the business model of the firm. Management Decision, 43, 789–809. doi:10.1008/00251740510603565 The Price of Prestige 177 Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–13. doi:102307/2392808
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory [Electronic version]. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). London, UK: Sage.
Toma, J. D. (2008). Positioning for prestige in American higher education: Case studies of strategies at four public institutions toward “getting to the next level.” (Summary paper, Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice). Retrieved from the University of Southern California website: http://www.usc.edu
Toma, J. D. (2012). Institutional strategy: Positioning for prestige. In M. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era (pp. 118–159). Baltmore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147-1161. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1147::aid-smj128>3.0.co;2-r
Turner, R. G. (2012, August 22). Fall address to the SMU faculty: August 22, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.smu.edu
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of higher education. A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
Valentinov, V. (2008). The economics of the non-distribution constraint: A critical reappraisal. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 79, 35–52. 10.1111/j.1467.8292.2007.00351.x
Veblen, T. (1918). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men. New York, NY: E. B. Huebsch.
Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47, 129–148. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8883-5
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280–321. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.3.280 The Price of Prestige 178 Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.19628408
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 443–454. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090525
Wellman, J. V. (2008). Strengthening board capacity for strategic financial oversight. Retrieved from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges website: http://agb.org
Wellman, M., Gowan, M. A., & White, S. C. (2006). MBA degree and school tier as human capital: Comparative study of MBA and non-MBA career success. Academy of Management Proceedings, 8(1), J1–J6. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2006.27162004
Wilson, D., & McKiernan, P. (2011). Global mimicry: Putting strategic choice back on the business school agenda. British Journal of Management, 22, 457–469. doi:10.1111.j.1467-8551.2011.00765.x
Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 13–36. doi:10.1257/jep.13.1.13
Winston, G. C. (2000). The positional arms race in higher education (WPEHE discussion paper series, Williams College, Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education, No. 54). Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu
Winston, G. C. (2003). Towards a theory of tuition: Prices, wages and peer competition in higher education. Unpublished manuscript, Project on the Economics of Higher Education, Williams College, Williamstown, MA.
White House, Office of the Press Secretary, The. (2013). Fact sheet on the President’s plan to make college more affordable: A better bargain for the middle class [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov
Wooldridge, A. (2011, July 7). How to make colleges cheaper. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com
Wyatt, A. T. M. (2011). Concepts, ideas, visions: Thematic characteristics of strategic plans among elite, international universities (Doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu The Price of Prestige 179 Young, D. R., Jung, T., & Aranson, R. (2010). Mission-market tensions and non-profit pricing. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 153–169. doi:10.1177/027507/400933541:1
Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., & Iannozzi, M. (1997). In search of strategic perspective: A tool for mapping the market in postsecondary education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29, 23–38. doi:10.1080/00091389709602344
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 308–319). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. The Price of Prestige 180 Appendix A: Biographies of Members of the Expert Stakeholders
Dr. David Collis is the Thomas Henry Carroll Ford Foundation adjunct professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Dr. Collis received a Master of
Arts degree with a double first from Cambridge University, a Master of Business
Administration degree from Harvard Business School, and a PhD in business economics from Harvard University. Dr. Collis has contributed to chapters to three books about strategy and business models in higher education.
Dr. Joseph Cronin, was the president of Bentley College, Waltham,
Massachusetts, from 1991 to 1997. Dr. Cronin earned his Artium Baccalaureus (AB; trans. fr. L. Bachelor of Arts) and Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) degrees from
Harvard University and his doctorate in education from Stanford University. He served as the Massachusetts Secretary of Education, Illinois State Superintendent of Education, and president of the Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corporation.
After a 25-year career in higher education administration Dr. Daniel Rodas left
Long Island University in the fall of 2013 and joined an executive search firm. Dr. Rodas served as vice president for the Department of Planning and vice president for the
Department of Human Resources. He previously served as provost of Southampton
College, a residential liberal arts college affiliated with Long Island University. Prior to joining Long Island University, Dr. Rodas was the assistant vice president for Office of
Administration and special assistant to the executive vice president at Duke University.
He has also held positions in the Office of the Provost at Stanford University and in academic health affairs at Harvard University. Dr. Rodas earned a BA cum laude with highest honors in American studies from Williams College; a master’s degree in education from Harvard University; and an MBA, certificate in public management, and The Price of Prestige 181 doctoral degree in higher education from Stanford University. He is currently a trustee of
The College Board.
Mr. John Williams is a life trustee and member of the Board of Trustees of
Amherst College, a prestigious private liberal arts college. Mr. Williams currently consults with nonprofit organizations as a partner in the Bridgespan Group. He is also
Entrepreneur in Residence at the Harvard Innovation Lab (I-Lab) and a serial entrepreneur having founded many companies in the travel business such as
BizTravel.com. Mr. Williams holds a BA from Amherst College, and a joint MBA and
Juris Doctor (JD; trans. fr. L. Doctor of Law) degree from Harvard Business School and
Harvard Law School. The Price of Prestige 182 $4,850 $42,778 $34,640 $35,972 $39,550 $40,649 $36,590 $43,561 $33,702 $40,458 Tuition and fees and Tuition Top 200 Provo – Institute USNWR School Ranking Top 200 Top Stevens Institute of Technology of Institute Stevens Tulsa of University Brigham Young University Young Brigham University Syracuse Polytechnic Worcester University Marquette University Baylor University Clark University American University Christian Texas 82 86 62 62 62 75 75 75 75 82 Rank $45,890 $41,538 $40,170 $42,292 $44,000 $49,138 $43,245 $46,386 $43,498 $45,476 US News and World Report 2014 Report and World News US Tuition and fees and Tuition School Appendix B: Private Nonprofit Colleges and Universities in the 2014 in the Nonprofit and Universities Colleges Private Appendix B: rofit Colleges and Universities in the 2014 the in and Universities Colleges rofit p California Institute of Technology of Institute California Massachusetts Institute of Technology of Institute Massachusetts University Duke of Pennsylvania University Stanford University Stanford of Chicago University Harvard University Harvard University Yale University Columbia Princeton University Princeton 1 B 10 7 7 7 5 5 2 3 4 Rank 1 Table Non Private The Price of Prestige 183 $39,842 $34,013 $35,800 $39,810 $40,294 $33,990 $38,526 $40,610 $40,707 $41,392 $37,505 $35,503 $36,726 Tuition and fees and Tuition School DePaul University DePaul of America University Catholic University Clarkson University of Denver University of Diego San University University Drexel Chicago University Loyola University St. Louis Technology of Institute Illinois Thomas of St. University of Dayton University Pacific of the University of Francisco San University 91 91 97 121 121 121 101 101 109 112 112 112 117 Rank $44,805 $44,742 $46,298 $46,752 $45,470 $45,527 $44,841 $45,612 $45,359 $42,978 $38,941 $44,605 $44,008 Tuition and fees and Tuition School University in St. Louis in St. University Wake Forest University Forest Wake California of Southern University Emory University Emory University Georgetown Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University Rice Dame of Notre University Brown University Brown University Cornell Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins University Northwestern Washington Dartmouth College Dartmouth 23 23 20 20 17 18 18 14 16 12 12 14 Rank 10 The Price of Prestige 184 $28,430 $30,800 $37,260 $25,002 $35,000 $36,020 $29,315 $35,820 $41,328 $37,400 $40,928 $22,683 Tuition and fees and Tuition 1 School School Florida Institute of Technology of Institute Florida of Minnesota University St. Mary's Seton Hall University Seton Hall York New of Institute Polytechnic University Hofstra New University Howard College John Fisher St. University Adelphi University John's St. Louis of St. University Maryville Verne of La University University 167 173 128 128 135 135 142 142 152 152 161 161 Rank $37,600 $42,852 $46,962 $46,598 $45,622 $44,848 $45,372 $46,106 $41,800 $43,520 $44,910 $46,269 Tuition and fees and Tuition University School University University of Miami University Boston University Institute Polytechnic Rensselaer University Yeshiva Case Western Reserve University Reserve Western Case Lehigh New York University York New of Rochester University University Brandeis Tufts University Tufts Boston College Carnegie Mellon Carnegie 47 41 41 47 37 41 32 32 32 28 31 Rank 23 The Price of Prestige 185 $24,666 $30,740 $32,256 $38,069 $32,142 $25,470 $38,028 Tuition and fees and Tuition School Azusa Pacific University Pacific Azusa University Pace Biola University University Andrews University Widener College Edgewood University Immaculata 173 173 177 181 181 190 190 Rank $41,686 $46,930 $47,343 $43,577 $44,902 $43,800 Tuition and fees and Tuition School Pepperdine University Pepperdine University Methodist Southern Tulane University Tulane University Washington George University Fordham Northeastern University Northeastern 57 60 52 52 57 Rank 49 The Price of Prestige 186 Other No data No data No data No data No data No No Data No position Doc type/date No data No data No data No data No data No data No No data No trustees No Data No Board of Board Doc type/date Doc $4,850 Tuition $43,577 $44,902 $42,292 $44,000 $44,605 $46,298 $46,598 $37,600 o Data Could be Located for the Phrase “Tuition Increase” “Tuition the Phrase for Located be Could o Data hich n hich Provo – Data Could be Located About Identity or Role of Participants in the in of or Role Participants Identity About Located Could be Data top 200 forw 200 top Tuition Increase Decision Tuition Increase Which no Which College or university College University Tufts University Yeshiva University Fordham University Pepperdine University Young Brigham Harvard College, Harvard University Harvard College, Harvard University Yale Dame of Notre University California of Southern University U.S. News and World Report World and News U.S. rank 2 3 28 47 57 57 62 18 23 USNWR 2014 1 C Appendix C: Colleges and Universities for and Universities Colleges Appendix C: 50 58 39 20 25 8 6 37 27 Rank by Rank tuition Colleges and Universities in the in Universities and Colleges Table The Price of Prestige 187 Other No data No data No data No data No data No data No No data No data No data No data No position Doc type/date No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No No data No data No data No data No trustees Board of Board Doc type/date Doc Tuition $25,002 $32,256 $25,470 $39,550 $37,505 $38,526 $40,610 $41,328 $37,400 $40,928 $28,430 $37,260 York College or university College St. John Fisher College John Fisher St. University John's St. Louis of St. University Maryville University Pacific Azusa University Andrews Catholic University of America University Catholic University Clarkson New of Institute Polytechnic University University Hofstra School New Clark University Clark University Drexel rank 75 97 142 152 161 173 181 121 121 128 135 135 USNWR 2014 85 66 86 79 65 43 84 46 42 59 55 Rank by Rank tuition 53 The Price of Prestige 188 Other No data No data No data No position Doc type/date No data No data No data No trustees Board of Board Doc type/date Doc Tuition $38,028 $24,666 $30,740 College or university College Immaculata University Immaculata Widener University Widener College Edgewood rank 190 181 190 USNWR 2014 87 82 Rank by Rank tuition 57 The Price of Prestige 189 09 12 07 09 12 13 13 04 12 - - 12 ------6 8 of document 09 11 - 23 25 23 24 12 12 ------PR 2 PR PR, 2 PR, PR 2 PR 2 PR 1 PR 3 PR PR 2 PR 3 PR PR 2 PR 2 PR, Type and date and Type that entail that Decision Makers Decision Data Identity of Identity – of trustees role in tuition increase decision increase in tuition role trustees of Board e Decisions, Source Document for Document Source e Decisions, Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board University plan admin endorse Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board increase an approved University Brown of corporation The parameters planning approved Trustees of Board increase tuition board the an across Appendix D: Content Analysis Content Appendix D: University University College Wake Forest University Forest Wake Boston Cornell University Emory Northwestern University Northwestern University Brown University of Chicago University University Duke College Dartmouth Stanford University Stanford 1 23 31 16 20 12 14 5 7 10 Rank 5 Table D Increas Tuition in Trustees of Board the Role of The Price of Prestige 190 07 - 08 - 13 09 13 01 11 10 14 13 - 02 ------2013 - - 8 1 - of document 15 26 26 18 16 17 21 ------19 12; 2 - - 23 PR 2 PR - PR 2 PR 2 PR 1 PR PR 3 PR 3 PR 2 PR , 2 PR PR, 2 PR, PR 7 PR PR 2 PR Type and date and Type of trustees role in tuition increase decision increase in tuition role trustees of Committee of Board of Trustees of Board of Committee Board Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board decide Trustees of Board Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board Trustees of the Board by Approved approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board Executive approved Trustees of Board tuition set Regents approved Trustees of Board Thomas University University of St. University University of Denver University University St. Louis Syracuse University Syracuse Polytechnic Worcester Institute University Baylor Institute Washington George University Lehigh University Lehigh Boston University Polytechnic Rensselaer University of Rochester University 112 91 101 62 62 75 52 41 41 41 Rank 32 The Price of Prestige 191 - - - - 9 13 15 11 12 - - - 7 2 - 12 5 Trustees minutes meeting Committee 3 12 - minutes - 2010 minutes - 11 27 - 3 - - 7 2 01 of document 07 - 2 - - 09 Council 1 of Board of Board of 13 Advisory PR, 2006 PR, PR 4 PR emic minutes 2002 minutes meeting minutes minutes faculty meeting minutes meeting faculty Acad Type and date and Type (MM) Consolidated faculty Senate faculty Consolidated (MM) (MM) Budget (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) Faculty Senate Faculty (MM) (MM) (MM) Budget Committee Budget (MM) (MM)Board of Trustees of (MM)Board meeting. Approved tuition Approved meeting. of trustees role in tuition increase decision increase in tuition role trustees of Board Board of Trustees approved Operating budget including budget Operating approved Trustees of Board Budget and Finance committee of Board recommends to recommends of Board committee and Finance Budget Board increase tuition Approves Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board approves Trustees of Board Trustees of Board reaffirmed Trustees of Board increase tuition approves Regents of Board is considering" Board trustees of on board Pres. Report increase 1 University St. Mary's University of University St. Mary's Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt of Pennsylvania University Seton Hall University Seton Hall University Methodist Southern Howard University Howard of Diego San University Adelphi University Adelphi Pacific of the University University of Dayton University 173 17 7 128 60 142 91 152 112 Rank 112 The Price of Prestige 192 - - - - 2 2 12 - 07 - 13 13 - - 23 - Online 22 15 3/17/10 - - 3 , 2 community April 2003 April Tech to January 2012 January 09 12 of document Times - - The 13 12 20 15 aid; - community Magazine president Newsline Campus Campus Observer Campus campus (SN) financial Hopkins - Memo from board chairman to board chairman from Memo Type and date and Type DePaul (SN) (SN) Student Newspaper 2 Newspaper Student (SN) and (SN) Student newspaper report 11 report newspaper Student (SN) Letter from Letter http://resources.mit.edu/asking/tuition of Board of Trustees of of Board of trustees role in tuition increase decision increase in tuition role trustees of Committee Board Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board Board of Trustees approves Trustees of Board approves Trustees of Board the Board by approved were fees and Tuition Discussed Board The Finance increase a modest announce Trustees corporation the to goes Recommendation tuition set Trustees of Board University University Carnegie Mellon University Mellon Carnegie University American Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins of Institute Massachusetts Technology Texas Christian University Christian Texas University DePaul Technology Verne of La University Rice Minnesota of Institute Florida 23 75 12 7 82 121 161 18 Rank 167 The Price of Prestige 193 12 12 - - with Board 26 12 - - 14 06 - - meeting 1 - 23 - 2 s report 5 s report ’ of document and Poor s letter to students 1 students to s letter ’ of Trustees of Newsbrief 1 Newsbrief Parent News Winter 2007 Winter News Parent VP enrolllments3/21/2013 Type and date and Type Standard President Report of student union student of Report Three year fin plan presented to presented plan fin year Three Board of Directors Board to be considered by the by considered to be of trustees role in tuition increase decision increase in tuition role trustees of Board Board of Trustees approved Trustees of Board levels current its at tuition hold Trustees approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board approved Trustees of Board . . . presented University University Georgetown University Georgetown Case Western Reserve Western Case University Princeton University Princeton Chicago University Loyola Brandeis Marquette University Marquette MM = meeting MM = minutes; PRmeeting = press SN = release; student newspaper. 20 Note. 37 1 101 32 Rank 75 The Price of Prestige 194 in source document Secondary research and research scholarship SP 2010: SP world Achieve preeminence - Student Source 13 document - 2005 newspaper; Student 3 newspaper 15 2008 Strategic 2010 Plan; plan Strategic - a The biggest jumps in tuition injumps biggest The Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige “ a USNWR Rank in the Same Document with Source Document Identified Document Source with Document Same the in Rank a USNWR tuition if we really want to attend a top a attend to want really we if tuition institution.” notch Place 25 fields in the top ten National ten top the in 25 fields Place by rankings (NRC) Council Research professional every placing 2015, while relevant its in ten top the in school 19 rankings, the 1995 NRC (In ranking. ten. top the in ranked fields graduate or schools professional our Four of second.) or first rank currently programs said Lee Sean freshman College Duncan behind the reasoning the he understood increase. become to wanted Rice after started said. Lee university,” and better larger in increases can expect we think “I tainable Appendix E: Tuition Increases and Prestige Seeking and Prestige Increases Tuition Appendix E: art facilities, robust art facilities, - the - Tuition increase reference increase Tuition of - costs of higher education continue education higher of costs I think [the increase] is taking into is taking [the think increase] I said aspirations has Rice that account Collins. director Budget The education, innovative support to to rise require which scholarship, and research, state and salaries, competitive infrastructure, for amenities and services more unsus avoid . . . . students. increases tuition “Tuition Increase” and Prestige Seeking such as such Seeking Prestige and Increase” “Tuition to University references Rice University Rice Cornell University 1 18 16 Rank Table E for Data The Price of Prestige 195 source document Secondary r r - - 13 08 - - 12 - 14 8 22 - - - Source 3 13 and 3 13 document - - PR Student 2 Newspaper 28 21 PR 2 PR 2 PR n easily . . . . . country a global institution, the look the institution, a global Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige lind in admissions and meets admissions inlind the U is ranked 31st among 31st ranked is the U nd a private university that is that university private nd a b , . . . Currently ranked 13th in the country by country the in 13th ranked Currently Statewide tuition rankings, he said, do he said, rankings, tuition Statewide as a role Brandeis’ for account not fairly “Because university. global and national ca and one a national we’re argue, sit we where more much is really rankings, national in the and nationally Kiplinger’s Personal Finance as a best as Finance Personal Kiplinger’s private universities among value the among ranked was Mellon Carnegie by universities research national top 25 the by world the in and 20th USNRW Times London Overall and WR. USN by universities National that universities 21 private of only One is need need full demonstrated the We atte the best of one as ranked nationally the in institutions those institutions that are that institutions those — Tuition increase reference increase Tuition A four percent increase may be may increase fourA percent the but one year, for small relatively to enroll planning class year first current overall an experience will next year years two in increase 8.79 percent percent 4.85 year’s last of because students. on new increase both academically strong and strong both academically affordable. increase tuition Announced at tuition set has Trustees of Board $44879 Emory is consistently identified as a as identified is consistently Emory universities private among best value and colleges Mellon University Brandeis University Carnegie University Boston College Emory University 32 23 31 20 Rank The Price of Prestige 196 source document Secondary egic strat Source document 2014 plan score - rsities, with more with rsities, as a national and national as a with our core values of values core our with 0; increase its two its increase 0; Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige Arts, Sciences and Engineering will and Engineering Arts, Sciences approximately from faculty its increase 38 350 to students entering for SATs equivalent increase 1400; least at 1368 to from 16,000 approximately from applications we’ve moved out of the very most the very out of moved we’ve tuition Statewide schools expensive account fairly do not he said, rankings, role for Brandeis’ university. global A plan): Strategic 2008 the of (Vision it placed quality whose University 20 research the leading among States the United in universities consistent academic excellence, academic and community. diversity, freedom, in size faculty for When normalized we which for year recent most 2011, the in federal 15th rank we data, have the 176 top among funding research unive research funded total sponsored in million than $400 two prior the of each during research for (2) in 2012. million $348 and years 2018, By plan: strategic the current adjusted tuition adjusted - Tuition increase reference increase Tuition Between 2004 and 2008, for example, for 2008, 2004 and Between at our increases tuition of rate the inflation, for adjusted when schools, the last during 4.2 percent; averaged inflation years, five at percent 2.1 averaged have increases of Rochester. the University University Rochester University of University 32 Rank The Price of Prestige 197 source document Secondary r 06 - 16 - 2 13 - Source colleagues; document “ 30 - The Brown and Brown The White President's state President's of the letter university to 9 in the US the in — year student year - such as the as such aught up in an arms in an up aught — to 41st from 51st from to 41st Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige — World Report Ranking of Ranking Report World ogress toward our aspiration to be to aspiration our toward ogress Boston University gained 10 gained University Boston interuniversity competition. interuniversity c are “Universities said. Dearden students,” attract to race the out that figured have “Universities to have is students better to attract way offer and to and facilities faculty better to 20,000; and increase six increase and to 20,000; to 88 percent 85.6 from rates graduation percent That positions & News together Taken Universities… National progress our of indications with other year last the over of Association the join to invitation in jump the . . . . Universities American of is validation ranking News the US our pr private a great as) recognized (and be university research economics the of chair Dearden, James about writes and researches department, said He rankings. college and aid merit faster rise prices university reason the this is prices consumer than e cost of e cost 07 increase in th in increase 07 – Tuition increase reference increase Tuition began this year with a 3.7 percent 3.7 a with year this began No one particular factor is responsible factor one particular No the 2006 for attending We increase. tuition undergraduate University Lehigh University Boston University 41 41 Rank The Price of Prestige 198 source document Secondary r Student Source document 2012 report senate - The long The risk of falling out of falling risk sum sum game, - Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige ncreases were probably warranted by warranted probably were ncreases however, RPI’s ranking has fallen has ranking RPI’s however, is at RPI dramatically. 50 “top important symbolically of the ranking overall RPI’s While Colleges. the years, 11 past the up over has gone the not. In has of Engineering School better students merit aid. And attracting And aid. merit students better expensive.” is students good the to get competition this of result term is a zero students best more offering because said, Dearden of quality the won’t improve money seniors. school high by surprised not was he said Dearden the thinks and he increase tuition the i Report World & News U.S. Lehigh’s to have you “What increase. ranking this playing at better is who’s out figure the “And said. Dearden game,” 37 to from moved year last university to aid merit offering are we 32. Maybe right people.” the News US RPI’s years, the past 10 In has risen ranking Report and World year, the past In consistently. fairly Average annual Average year increase year - 33.4%/4.77%/9.7%/1.56% year Increase Average/Average year Increase Tuition increase reference increase Tuition - Seven Increase/Seven Annual inflation)/ for (corrected inflation) for (corrected increase Cost Base 36.8%/5.26%/12.5%/1.99% Tuition 26.2%/3.75%/3.8%/0.63% Room/Board University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 41 Rank The Price of Prestige 199 - 1 - , 12 source Life at the at Life ” document “ Secondary on top Faculty Senate Faculty minutes 2004. President report Lownes 11 - 1 - 5 2 200 – Source document Minutes 2004 Senate faculty Report Annual enhance 100, we want to want 100, we - student ratio, the rankings of rankings the ratio, student – Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige competency as we have sought to sought have as we competency - rly shows a lack of focus on our focus of a lack shows rly past 11 years, the engineering school engineering the 11 years, past This 20 places. of a total has dropped clea core an institution as scope our expand 100 of top in support initiatives Senate of aspiration to our addition In status; top attaining faculty the National programs, professional of PhD rankings Council Research as a of NU and recognition programs, a and as university research national with a university urban premiere program. Coop premier – 05 was 5.9%, and 5.9%, 05 was that had higher had that – r Northeastern. We are r Northeastern. called “Lucky Thirteen” “Lucky called - Tuition increase reference increase Tuition 05. The average percentage average The 05. – also lower in tuition increases for 2004 for increases tuition in lower also so the 05 than our matchmates are that institutions the off get we that it’s important think I most highest, the as page front it’sa a way In university. expensive rap bum Table 5 also shows that there were 19 were there that shows 5 also Table in institutions education higher alone Massachusetts for Northeastern than fees and tuition 2004 19 these for increase fees and tuition 2004 for institutions gave institutions these of two only increases fees and tuition percentage fo that than less University George Washington University University Northeastern 52 49 Rank The Price of Prestige 200 12 12; - - 4 - 22 s - ’ meeting , 8 source document Secondary President to address faculty faculty 12 minutes - 6 09 - News 26 - Source 12 document - PR 2 PR Dallas 16 2012 Best Value Best 2012 changes will be will changes – nt, said he supports he said nt, mic goals, such as goals, mic The value of a WPI education WPI a of The value Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige year students to 1300 by 2015 . . . . by 1300 to students year also recognized by Kiplinger’s by recognized also - and for offering the greatest return on greatest the offering and for annual Payscale.com (see investment rankings). was a WPI named which Finance, Personal “2011 its in best value SMU leaders hope the hope leaders SMU are symbolic They than physical: more university to boost goals of broader and students top attract rankings, academic a greater become and faculty, the and in Dallas force and economic set have . Administrators . . . nation acade ambitious new for $200 million raising than 100 more establishing scholarships, and positions faculty endowed of score SAT average the increasing first student the and junior a Cavendar, Zane preside vice body the believes and construction campus the boost ultimately will projects reputation school’s the among ranked is consistently WPI salaries starting for the nation in highest 13, WPI’s tuition and fees and tuition WPI’s 13, 20 – Tuition increase reference increase Tuition For 2012 3.4 percent by increase will increase by nearly 4 percent to $8,815, to 4 percent nearly by increase said Regis Next fall, the annual tuition and student tuition annual the fall, Next to percent 6 about increase fees will rate will room average the $39,430 and University Worcester Polytechnic Institute Southern Methodist University 62 60 Rank The Price of Prestige 201 source document Secondary 11 08 - - 7 5 - - 5 Herald Source document Waco Tribune Minutes faculty Minutes 11 Senate “In AU among AU — tier research - year frame. Still, frame. year - makes strides, but falls short falls but strides, makes Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige tier research goal” tier research - at cost value. at cost tiated as part of the vision positioned vision the of part as tiated Baylor to become one of the nation’s the one of become to Baylor to Vaulting universities. research elite another least at take will level the next acknowledge.” they decade, Private College” rankings. Kiplinger’s rankings. College” Private all among 35th university the placed for nationwide colleges private and academics quality high providing gre strategic in trustee from (Report few next The committee). planning in issues, great engaging describe goals placing of goal the such as classification Carnegie appropriate its research the top 200 among and peers universities * “Baylor of top that concedes everyone most hindsight, a top [becoming goal reach within never was institution] 10 plan’s the during the efforts think university at the many ini 13, WPI’s tuition and fees tuition WPI’s 13, – Tuition increase reference increase Tuition $28,720 per year. $28,720 per For 2012 3.4 percent by increase will but set, was goal tuition specific No $11,370 to from risen has tuition University Baylor University University American 75 75 Rank The Price of Prestige 202 03 - 2 State - s 09 ’ - 10 3 - January source document Secondary President University of the letter 2009 Faculty Senate Faculty minutes and 12 - Source ancial 2011 document - Fin Review 4 Committee 29 TCU Environmental in scan connection with Strategic plan ide of For 2004, this For lop a doctoral program a doctoral lop Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige intensive university, then, it university, intensive - Stated the following assumptions: 1. assumptions: following the Stated Tier II top of the near be will TCU the of half top The institutions. ranked ranked be would universities Tier II 88th. and 51st between to have would TCU that mean would places at 11 least by ranking its increase II Tier of top half the in to be its to retain is TCU If universities. a doctoral as status university national research deve should at attracting aimed specifically strategy an As students. doctoral more and retain or sponsored little with institution to will need strategy a such research, of a market for programs doctoral create outs in areas interested students research. rnie Barkman asked if TCU isTCU asked if Barkman rnie Tuition increase reference increase Tuition What will be driving tuition levels in the in levels tuition driving be will What levels tuition that feel you Do future? top 50 TU obtaining in factor are a status? Senator A Senator in ranking a higher into to get trying costs. tuition University University of University Tulsa Texas Christian Texas University 86 82 Rank The Price of Prestige 203 - - - (2) 2 (2) source ancial 11 & (3) 8 11 & 11. (4) 2011 document Secondary - - - r Faculty Senate Faculty minutes 17 25 Fin Review 4 Committee 29 - 9 - s ’ 01 09 - - 18 26 - - Source document PR 1 PR 2 PR President the of State 1 University 09 y ampaign years. (2) College of College (2) years. niversity of Dayton is Dayton of niversity Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige Although the U the Although Catholic 10 top nation's the one of is tuition undergraduate its universities, largest the 25 among lowest fifth campuses Catholic When we were planning our c our planning were When we by began we in 2005, back performance TU’s benchmarking 50 Top News U.S. the of that against us a clear gave exercise That schools. and I progress, our to measure baseline U.S. key in that many to say pleased am alread are we criteria, ranking News progress. notable seeing as SLU ranked again 2000, USNWR In the among values best the one of . . . . universities national 288 nationals top the as tie Dame and Notre SLU list. on the universities catholic ranked significantly improved has ranking That three last the over planning academic and sciences Arts 1 research a true to attain principles: profile year 2022 school 2022 – Tuition increase reference increase Tuition Starting in August Annual in August Starting will fees and tuition undergraduate $28,690. $27,330 to from increase future trends in tuition for private for tuition in trends future particular in universities, and colleges institutions? and aspirant peer for our increase will tuition Undergraduate 2001 the for 6.9% What are the university’s plans university’s the are What What levels? tuition future regarding about with us share can you information University University of University Dayton St. Louis University University of University Tulsa 112 101 86 Rank The Price of Prestige 204 source document Secondary , - 3 - 2 June 1 mittee Source get document Bud Advisory Com minutes 2010 Faculty Senate Faculty meeting minutes 2001 I colleagues I if we systematically go systematically we if Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige e a significant difference over four over difference e a significant Ms. Borggren answered that extensive that answered Ms. Borggren pricing the into research and detailed elite of the and philosophy history developing in performed was HBCUs the for information the supporting has HU that stated She process. TRAC After the president's remarks, Provost remarks, president's the After future. the for on the goals spoke Shay is status Tier II his judgment, In us, for possible articulated Rocha Provost for quality. had but status, higher this of the vision resources the for a model not developed of class freshman The status. this for the balances 2001 merely 1300 in will 1300 of size class The budget. mak type of our institutions II Tier the years; significantly body student a to have tend to strive going are We ours. than larger systematic through for quality, comparisons Favorable improvements. Tier I with made be will tuition greater permit will which faculty, increased example, for increases etc. The 2003. Tuition increase reference increase Tuition Tuition will increase next year by 12 by year next increase will Tuition undergraduates for percent size, enrollments and such other such and enrollments size, variables; The budget process for FY process budget The the construct to be will step first tuition about budget the of assumptions University Howard University Seton Hall University 142 128 Rank The Price of Prestige 205 source document Secondary reg Source document 10/24/03 Times Campus 2013 president’s the of State University ” nd we don't, nd we e must be even e must If something is priced something If “ Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige We try to maintain our tuition with that with tuition our totry maintain We perceptions depend upon price, upon depend perceptions said. Badovick other If quality. as is it perceived high, a tuition raise schools if as well as why, wonder will people as the as good really is our school fallen behind its main competitors in competitors its main behind fallen and 1990’s, early the since rates tuition to intended are increases rate tuition the gap. that narrow leading the to be for Adelphi We aspire First, region. in the university private is reputation institutional our overall related on measures part large in based selectivity; admissions to undergraduate retention, success, satisfaction, student results; exam licensure and graduation; in changes the Given items. and related and demographics, the economy, w aspirations, student and enrollment our about strategic more and policies, promotions, aid financial more even and create practices, programs. academic distinctive “ quality frankly, because, schools of peer tuition with that with tuition cannot continue doing continue cannot Tuition increase reference increase Tuition tuition, our major source of source major our tuition, We try to maintain our totry maintain We “ schools of peer There is a limit to how high we can we high how to a limit is There raise We revenue. doing been always have we what can we how of review critical a without more and effective more be both efficient University University of La University Verne Adelphi University 161 152 Rank The Price of Prestige 206 source document Secondary r plan trategic 2023 s – Source document 2013 the Targeting Ten Top strategic report progress 2017 plan Just ⁴ . biomedical her than ‐ Johns rated in the in rated ranked 15th by ranked in non in ngs of the National the of ngs undergraduate program undergraduate technological universities in universities technological Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige . This ranking is hig This ranking . ” n their fields; other analyses that analyses other fields; their n others. bove and below it are Northwestern, are it and below bove The journey begins with that goal that with begins journey The Engineering) is currently is Engineering) Report World and News U.S. a Brown Cornell, University, Washington and Rice Homewood’s given predict one would 3 “ 10 most the one of to be inmind, clearly respected the world.” the of five schools, the Homewood In are programs 24 graduate i top 10 the of size the account into take show consistently faculty university 2007 a For example, rankings. higher in Proceedi paper rates of Sciences Academy in Harvard behind second Hopkins productivity research The engineering.³ and sciences Homewood Arts of School Krieger the (comprising School f Whiting the and and Sciences competing Tuition increase reference increase Tuition no mention> compared to compared universities. public < The tuition rate is comparable to other comparable is rate tuition The high but in Florida, universities private University Johns Hopkins University Florida Institute Florida Technology of 12 167 Rank The Price of Prestige 207 source document Secondary reg r - Source 2006 3 - document 1 - presented to presented of Board Trustees Council Staff 2010 May 2 plan fin year Answer: ith all three all ith are people are University of St. University Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige Thomas a clue that there that a clue Thomas need We also university. at the looking benchmarking our to attention to pay benchmarking are currently we and who that whether and against, ourselves are we Currently, change. should size and endowment . . . . The three The . . . . endowment and size second, rank currently schools health among respectively, fourth, and first, & News to U.S. according their peers Johns Hopkins making Report, World w University U.S. the only five the top among ranked schools the among is Georgetown Today and the top 25 universities nation's institutions esteemed most worlds lifecycle the about a question There was of the and history to aspirations have we Do Thomas. recognized? nationally become a as reputation a have we Currently News US in However, school. regional an up named were we Report World & St. That gives school. and coming Tuition increase reference increase Tuition As reported to you for the past several past the for you to reported As rely longer can no University the years, to rates tuition in on increases solely the University. of the growth support University University of St. University Thomas Georgetown University 112 20 Rank The Price of Prestige 208 source document Secondary reg trategic s Source document an 2017 pl known - ordham ees wants a wants ees initiatives and new and initiatives Main, Seton Hall University, Hall Seton Main, ‐ Prestige seeking text seeking Prestige tier national university recognized university tier national - benchmarked against the Sacred Eight Sacred the against benchmarked F University, (Duquesne University, Loyola University, Louis Saint University, Marquette University of San University of Dayton, University 4 schools. Catholic all are These Diego). are them 4 of us, but are like of them Trust of Board The not. and School Law ranked nationally we this, To achieve Business. of College ranked a nationally to be need university. Mary’s Saint years five the next Over new undertake will well as a itself to brand thinking top our and footprint global for our and to teaching commitment distinctive the leadership, ethical learning, education. online and sciences, Tuition increase reference increase Tuition s ’ University St. Mary of University Minnesota 173 Rank The Price of Prestige 209 - 18 - 1 meeting ersity budget 11 - document 5 - 2. Univ Council 4 presentation Report of the of Report Priorities Committee 12 Secondary source Secondary of April Winter Parent 12 ersity - 27 - Univ Chicago Magazine 2002 Bondholder Information package of 1. Minutes of Board meeting Trustees 2 2007 News Source document Source , Yale. sylvania down one position from one position down the ones we have the most have we ones the — Competitive group Competitive Northwestern, Princeton Stanford, Princeton Northwestern, institutions are students when with overlap Table shows Yale. Names applying. Chicago, Washington, NYU, Columbia, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, incl. 9 others and Georgetown, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Cornell, Columbia, Brown, Penn MIT, Harvard, group: Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Duke, Cornell, MIT, Yale ranks Princeton; Yale Harvard, MIT, 17, of 15th out rankings. the 2011/12 peer to ourselves compare We typically with Identity of Source Document Source of Identity with ompetitors and Named C Named and Appendix F: Tuition Increases and Strategic Cognitive and Groups Strategic Tuition Increases Appendix F: Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference The COFHE median increase was increase median COFHE The than Stanford's. faster substantially currently tuition Stanford’s in increase a 3.9% approved Trustees fees and tuition total Tuition increase 4.5%; Tuition increase Tuition 4.5%; increase Tuition Princeton . keeps . . . recommendation comparison its of bottom at the firmly research private leading The tuition have all almost will universities 4 percent between clustered increases and 5 percent “Tuition Increase” “Tuition College University of University Pennsylvania Stanford University University of University Chicago Princeton references to references 1 Rank 7 5 5 1 Table F for Data The Price of Prestige 210 09 - 25 . - 13 - 15 09 ersity - - 1 document - PR 3 PR by Remarks President 9 DeGioia Remarks by Remarks Kim President 12 of Report Univ Resources to Committee president Secondary source Secondary - 23 - - 2 1 - plan 2 12 - year - 8 09 ersity - - 1 ancial - Student newspaper 07 2 PR Three fin to presented trustees 2006 Remarks by Remarks Kim President 12 of Report Univ Resources to Committee president Source document Source , Johns , less than at peer than less Dartmouth, Princeton Dartmouth, Competitive group Competitive with regard to peer universities and universities to peer regard with with universities ten of average colleges and admissions applicant significant Columbia, Chicago, Brown, overlap: Duke Dartmouth, Cornell, Dame, Notre Northwestern, Hopkins, Princeton Cornell, Columbia, Brown, Peers: Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale Stanford, the in are fees and tuition Brown’s peers, with League Ivy of our middle of ahead and Cornell Penn, Columbia, us and Harvard, below. and Yale been historically has tuition Rice’s to $7,000 $5,000 about . . . . Princeton At universities. research Stanford At are charges student Emory's While peers our with consistent will levels tuition these that We expect position relative Georgetown’s maintain tuition — 3.8%) – Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference The Board increased Emory College Emory increased Board The tuition undergraduate current a includes Plan 2007 Financial FY The the for increase tuition 6.0% program undergraduate The committee recommends a total recommends committee The of 3.9% charges student in increase (Tuition 7.1% to increase Tuition Project revenue assumptions revenue Project annually increases College Georgetown University University Emory University Rice Dartmouth College Brown University Rank 20 20 18 10 14 The Price of Prestige 211 - 13 approved Board of Board document - Strategic plan 10 plan Strategic 11 by Trustees Secondary source Secondary - 1 s ’ 10 - Senate 18 - 08 - President to remarks faculty 22 Institutional research factbook 3 PR Source document Source Rice; Penn; Princeton; Penn; Competitive group Competitive r set involves 19 universities, whose universities, 19 involves set r mpetitor schools with lower tuitions lower with schools mpetitor American Universities (AAU) private (AAU) Universities American This centers. medical with universities pee was 2006 in fall enrollment average CMU, plan: strategic 17,623. 2013 RPI, campus, tech Cornell MIT, and Pennsylvania. Technology; of Institute California Tech; Georgia Emory; Duke; Cornell; Northwestern; MIT; Institute; Polytechnic Rensselaer in St. University Washington Stanford; Louis Universities and Duke Tufts, Brown, in2006, tuitions highest three had the Fairfield University, while Emory and University, Villanova University, only the were College Providence co than BC. to seek we what for models Closest Washington Hopkins, Johns are achieve Vanderbilt, Duke, University, most The and Emory. Northwestern, of the Association is set peer relevant . . . in Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference Inflation adjusted tuition increases have increases tuition adjusted Inflation 2.1 averaged The Board of trustees has set tuition set has trustees of Board The of 3.5% an increase Graph of CMU Tuition and Fees and Tuition CMU of Graph institutions the to relative 2010/11 column the next College College University of University Rochester Boston Carnegie Mellon University Rank 32 31 23 The Price of Prestige 212 12 - 26 strategic Student - document PR 3 PR 2006 plan 2012 report senate Secondary source Secondary - 30 State - s ’ 10 13 - - 17 27 IPEDS data IPEDS - - PR 3 PR President University of the to letter 9 colleague PR 3 PR 2012 report feedback Source document Source and 3/14 nology of Tech of itute Competitive group Competitive the following 11 institutions: following the Dartmouth and Princeton and Dartmouth Tufts, Northeastern, Penn, GW, NYU, USC Columbia, NYU, Washington atSt Washington NYU, Columbia, Louis Inst Rochester similar shown have Boston College 201 and 2003/4 between increases chosen group comparison custom The Institute Polytechnic Rensselaer by includes Mellon Carnegie Boston University; Reserve Western Case University; Lehigh University; Cornell University; of Institute Massachusetts University; University; Northeastern Technology; of University University; Rice ; of Rochester University Pennsylvania; Institute; Polytechnic Worcester Emory, Brown, Washington, added 2012 in American; Georgetown, Cornell, Mellon, Carnegie Rice, 1.99% – Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference Released the 2013/4 tuition room and room tuition the 2013/4 Released increase . . a 3.79% . rates board percent 3.7 a with year this We began increase. tuition undergraduate Chart of tuition increases: annual increases: tuition of Chart (before of 7 years /average increase after 5.16%; adjustment: inflation HEPI the using adjustment inflation index The updates included a 4% increase to increase 4% a included updates The tuition undergraduate College Boston University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rank 41 41 The Price of Prestige 213 12; 12 vol - - – 4 - 22 s - Council ’ 12 meeting Staff document address to address 8 Faculty, faculty minutes angles Quad mag. Alumni 2000 4, 16, issue 2012 Advisory meeting President Secondary source Secondary - 09; , 3 - 9 - 12 meeting Report minutes Senate 2010 - ual 5 - 10 - minutes Ann of the on Committee and Budget Affairs Fiscal 3 13 Senate 12 Faculty Source document Source Lehigh, Tufts, Lehigh, st Boston College, Boston Competitive group Competitive survey of peer institutions including institutions of peer survey A question was asked regarding how regarding asked was question A Tulane compares to peer institutions. Of institutions. to peer compares Tulane a Northwestern, Emory, Duke, Brown, average the al., et Univ, Wash Tufts, $56,977; was attendance of total cost 56,484. was Tulane Baylor, U, American peers: Cohort Pepperdine, GW, Fordham, Boston U, Miami. Denver, TCU, Syracuse, peers: Aspirational Emory, CMU, Brandeis, USC, Rochester, Dame, Notre Tulane, Fore Wake Vanderbilt, Boston NYU, Ithaca, Cornell, BU, College l tuition increase of increase tuition l an increase of 4% in of an increase Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference 4.7% Recommend increases of SYR Chart (2). tuition to peers relative Dean Moore also told the meeting that meeting the told also Moore Dean of increase tuition a approved the Board that said Dean The year. for next 5.9% of process in the is the Board intuition in increases 6% considering next following years two the of for each overal (2) year. Budget review committee report. The report. committee review Budget 4.14% a $1,650, is increase tuition increase. College Syracuse University Southern Methodist University Tulane University Rank 62 60 52 The Price of Prestige 214 plan 2012 07 , - 1 - egic document Strat 11 May 2 PR Secondary source Secondary - 23 - 2013 - Senate 19 - Report of Report to Briefing student and the VP F by A 1 brief News 14 PR 7 PR Source document Source ’s Competitive group Competitive US News and World Report and World News US and Texas Christian University. Christian Texas and SMU, TCU, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt Forest, Wake TCU, SMU, Only eight of the 62 private universities private the 62 of eight Only in listed tuitions lower have schools top 120 17th ranks Marquette Marquette. than Baylor's tuition and required fees required tuition and Baylor's private peer than lower remain Rice, including Texas, in institutions SMU below well remains tuition also Baylor's universities private of most those Emory, as Duke, such Texas, of outside Pepperdine, Dame, Notre Northwestern, of University Tulane, Stanford, and Vanderbilt California, Southern Forest. Wake schools private other than lower We are – — e ago utilized debt utilized - no longer constituted longer no the growth and improvement and the growth — Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference realized during Baylor 2012 Baylor during realized in undergraduate increases substantial institution’s the accessing and tuition under previously capacity as growth significant for opportunities a decad case the was an approved has Trustees of Board increase tuition undergraduate Explain decision to raise tuition by 8% by tuition raise to decision Explain (2) meeting. Regents of at Board finance to employed tactics principal of much Regents voted to increase voted Regents tuition undergraduate College University Marquette University Baylor Rank 75 75 The Price of Prestige 215 - - 11. 29 03 17 - - - - 2 - 25 - 09 - (2) 2 (2) 10/2/03; 3 ancial - 09 - 3 document - Minutes 10 Minutes and 12 Senate Faculty minutes 8 (3) 11 & (4) Fin Review 4 Committee; 2011 Faculty Senate Faculty minutes 12 Senate Faculty Secondary source Secondary with 12; s State - ’ 12 12. - - 09 - 12 - 9 - Environmental in scan connection plan Strategic President University of the 1 PR 11 PR 11 Student report newspaper TCU Source document Source ulane, nd other nd Competitive group Competitive 37,000. ‐ Louis) and Rice, all of which had scores which of all and Rice, Louis) 2.6. was score composite of 2.2. SMU’s among the 28 Jesuit institutions of institutions Jesuit the 28 among and tuition total for education higher fees. mandatory educational the university’s model Baylor, as such schools after value Vanderbilt. and Tulane to able has been University 1. The a rate tuition its increase than other faster significantly charges up with as a catch partly institutions, TCU 2. institutions; comparison other peer other all than lower are charges SMU While Tulsa 3. except institutions, is $36 TU ratios) responsibility financial (For Forest, Wake to favorably compared T TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, (St. University Washington Duke, and aspirant institutions? and aspirant Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference (1) Planning to announce modest tuition modest to announce (1) Planning university’s the are What (4) increases. levels? tuition future regarding plans us with share you can information What private for tuition in trends future about particular in universities, and colleges peer for our in levels tuition driving be will What tuition that feel you Do future? the top TU obtaining in a factor are levels (1)TCU has a low tuition and tuition low a has (1)TCU other with compared charge residential tuition TCU’s (2) institutions. similar almost are charges and board and room peer to comparison in lowest the institutions. College Tulsa University of University Texas Christian Texas University Rank 86 82 The Price of Prestige 216 11 - 4 - 13 - 2 01 - 13 - ting ting minutes document 29 aculty Senate aculty - Faculty Senate Faculty mee 1 F minutes and 2 Secondary source Secondary 2 01 13 13 issue - - - 18 15 26 - - - XV, 2 PR 1 PR 2 PR PR forum, Faculty vol 2002 Source document Source Forest, Competitive group Competitive St. Thomas ranks 7th in comprehensive in 7th ranks Thomas St. in room and tuition as in as well fee, institutions the 17 among and board, Minnesota the of members are that Council College Private Continue to compare favorably against favorably compare to Continue to comes it when institutions our peer cost and value western Case Tulane, Renslaer, Peers: U, American Francisco, San Yeshiva Dayton. Tulsa, Chicago, Loyola TCU Dartmouth, Duke, group: Aspiration Santa Emory, Vanderbilt, Richmond, Wake Rochester, Clara, private became Later Pepperdine. private and elite group public group, group top ranked as tie and SLU Notre Dame be still will tuition SLU's universities; St. at Washington than less significantly College, Boston Dame, Louis, Notre of University the or Northwestern Chicago in setting increase stees approved a 3.95 approved stees Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference 1.) Undergraduate tuition at SLU will SLU at tuition 1.) Undergraduate goal The 2.) 6.9%; increase increase the 3.9% 4.5%. increase will rates Tuition One goal of this tuition this of goal One middle in the DU to keep is analysis market competitive a selected of range virtually is budget FY12 The (1) group. percent a 3.74 includes It finished. the below This is increase. tuition (2) institutions. other many of increases Tru of Board The year next for increase % tuition 50 status? approved trustees of Board that recommendation administration’s 3.95% by increased be tuition College University of University Thomas St. St. Louis University University of University Denver Rank 112 101 91 The Price of Prestige 217 document Secondary source Secondary 10 - of 13 - 11 - ittee 03 - 7 utive - 4 24 - LaVerne Times Campus 10 press release, press 2006 Exec Comm Academic 12 Senate PR Source document Source Competitive group Competitive 10 Catholic University 10 Catholic Top like cost, of end high in the Those lower the made and Lehigh Fordham like bottom the at and those increases, had of Cincinnati and University Miami increases. the higher region the in university leading ” We try “ that of peer ofthat Hawkey said. Hawkey ” we must follow must we If something is priced something If “ The University wants to wants University The “ Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference heir lead. heir similar to La Verne, Hawkey said. If Hawkey Verne, to La similar their increasing are universities other said Hawkey tuition, t competitive as a position its maintain private among institution and respected region, the in colleges of a matter is it that said Badovick and marketability. perception with tuition our to maintain quality frankly, because, schools price, upon depend perceptions said. Badovick middle also. UD is in the middle of the of the middle in is UD also. middle institutions. of peer group 2%. to be held will increases Tuition tuition reason the only is not this But is a study year Every increases. institutions private of other conducted The University of Dayton will increase will of Dayton University The 4.7% tuition undergraduate the in was 4.4% of increase tuition Our College University of University Verne La Adelphi University Dayton University of University Rank 161 152 112 The Price of Prestige 218 document Secondary source Secondary Source document Source Competitive group Competitive as good as the as good ” Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference high, it is perceived as quality. If other If quality. as is it perceived high, don't, and we tuition raise schools if as well as why, wonder will people really is our school others. College Rank The Price of Prestige 219 ober Oct Board of Board 09 remarks - document search strategic search 25 - Re to plan Trustees 2013 9 president by DeGioia; Secondary source Secondary year - 3 08 - 22 08 - - ident’s 2006 Source - document 22 1 - - Trustees Institutional research factbook 2 PR Pres to remarks senate faculty 1 2 fin plan to presented of Board among the most among e; yield school. (2) school. at least 15,000 least at Georgetown admission selectivity admission Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference Anticipate to signal applications undergraduate become has the University that clearly and national important a more international We had an acceptance rate of 18.7% rate an acceptance We had making held yield Our the nation. in selective at 43% steady math and SAT reading Combined % of peers; the 10 to relative scores class; of 10% in top first years rat acceptance highly remains class Freshman for applications 21747 competitive. class year first the in 1360 spots with Identity of Source Document Source of Identity with - . . . . 1 – at the University of the University at Admissions Selectivity Admissions % the last five years, inflation years, five last the FY 2007 Financial Plan includes Plan 2007 Financial FY Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference Announced tuition increase tuition Announced During have increases tuition adjusted 2.1 averaged Rochester. The Main Campus continues to be continues Campus Main The existing of a combination via funded and increases, tuition budgets, The the for increase tuition a 6.0% program undergraduate 2010= Fees and Tuition Appendix G: Tuition Increases and Student Quality/Admission Selectivity and Quality/Admission Student Tuition Increases Appendix G: ition Increase and Increase ition Tu College University of University Rochester Carnegie Mellon Carnegie University University Georgetown References to References 1 32 23 Rank 20 Table G for Data The Price of Prestige 220 trategic s document 2006 plan Secondary source Secondary - letter s and ’ Source 12 - document President the of State University Standard 5 report Poors 12 to % ge increase in our in increase ge bout 1340 (the 1340 bout in fall 2011, and 16.2% and 2011, fall in score equivalent SAT equivalent score we have seen increases of increases seen have we - 2014 academic year. academic 2014 – admission selectivity admission college, Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference the average ACT score was 30 (the was score ACT the average 21). about is average national lar the of Because 20 nearly (up by pool applicant for selectivity our 52,700 applicants), Undergraduate student quality and quality student Undergraduate At strengthened. been have diversity the 3.56 to 3.81 from GPAs school high two and the 1368 in an anticipated 1304 to from the 2013 about accepted fall 2011, CWRU In an pool, applicant freshman its 51% of fall 2010, in 67% from improvement selectivity 75% to 70% the as as well and 2009. 2007 fall between seen rate 13% only however, accepted, those Of matriculated that view, our in levels, weak in 2010, from competition strong very indicate quality high for institutions other quality student CSRU's students. 2011 fall the for high: remains average the class, freshman entering a was SAT score and 1017), about is average national % from the year), prior from charges (tuition, mandatory fees, mandatory (tuition, charges began this year with a 3.7 a with year this began Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference We increase. tuition undergraduate Total an for and board) and room (up $51,058 are student undergraduate 4.1% about College Boston University Case Western Case Reserve University 41 37 Rank The Price of Prestige 221 - ” - 05 1 - State - , 12 document Life at the top the at Life Lownes report on report Lownes “ President’s University of the faculty to speech 10 assembly 10 Faculty Senate Faculty minutes 2004. President Secondary source Secondary - demic 5 State ’s 200 – Source 13 - document Chief Aca Officer of the University to speech to colleagues 9 to colleagues 30 2004 Senate faculty Report Annual l was . . . . We ...... A . . setting milestones in setting milestones - edian score for the for edian score granting schools and schools granting - but a few are Tier 1. are a few but the m the toward becoming a more and a more becoming toward admission selectivity admission test SAT is 1950 and the median and 1950 is test SAT - . The academic qualifications of qualifications academic The . % Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference Progress institution selective more of record number for both selectivity institution’s the programs our undergraduate the class improved to a new low of low a new to improved the class 37 rise: to continue freshmen our entering degree in our colleges, three 3.62. is GPA school high increased have NU at Applications single since 2002. Our markedly in the change the is asset greatest above 81% to having pool applicant We average. SAT the national application completed our exceeded goa selectivity our 2004; for goal was the actual and 45% selectivity We acceptances). (24,239 42% goal SAT applicant our exceeded by average) national above (percent We have actual). 82% goal, 5% (77% most competition; in our the bar raised 2 Tier are competitors current institutions t are our t are called “Lucky called 19 institutions 19 - But the problem is that problem the But 05 was 5.9%, and only and 5.9%, was 05 . 20 05 than the so the than 05 – else 20 – Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference matchmates as aid student much as We provide anyone tuition our out of taking we’re to raise having are we and so revenues for it possible make to our price The average percentage tuition and tuition percentage average The these for increase fees for 2004 gave institutions these oftwo increases fees and tuition percentage We are Northeastern. for that than less for increases tuition in lower also 2004 tha institutions Thirteen” College University George Washington Northeastern University 52 49 Rank The Price of Prestige 222 , faculty s ’ faculty minutes meeting, 12; 12 - - document 4 - 22 - Staff Advisory Staff Council 2012 President to address 8 meeting 12 Secondary source Secondary - - 9 - 12 meeting minutes 2010 - Source 5 09 - - document Senate 12 Faculty minutes 09 faculty 10 assembly 30 year - of our of % our freshman our — again those are all record all are those again an average SAT of 1275, an 1275, SAT of average an admission selectivity admission of those whom we offered we whom those of % Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference increase of six points over last year. In year. last over points six of increase the to points 25 least add at toorder incoming of SAT score average we years, three next the over students applicant our to grow continue must those of the yield increase pool, had just short of 22,000 applications 22,000 of short just had undergraduate for our admit lowest our And year. this class of criterion is one which ever rate 31 admitted we selectivity, the highest had also and we applicants history; institution’s the in rate yield 38 the to come to chose admission Their University. Washington George of out 1,960 was SAT score average 2,400 and numbers are we applications, 24,000 theOf students fewer 17% to accept going year. for next toward progress to make We continue of score SAT average an of our goal delighted to am 2015. I 1300 by first incoming the that announce has class that (2) overall (2) on increase is $1,650, a 4.14% a $1,650, is increase on Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference Dean Moore also told the meeting the told also Moore Dean increase tuition a approved the Board year. next for of 5.9% of 4.7% increase tuition Budget review committee report. The report. committee review Budget tuiti increase. people to afford to pay our price. our pay to afford to people College University Tulane University Tulane Southern Methodist 52 60 Rank The Price of Prestige 223 - 28 - – and s letter plan ’ 2014 2012 - , 2013; (3). 2013; 19 - tegic document plan goals Stra 11 May 7 PR AU Budget AU 2012 fiscal fiscal President to campus 1 community 13 on strategic Secondary source Secondary 12 - 6 - Senate 2008 rt of rt - Source 5 - document Repo to Briefing senate student and the VP F by A Waco Herald 5 Tribune 11 faculty minutes - (while Reality: % 2012: Increase 2012: based scholarships - to the University, and the University, to Baylor admission selectivity admission time freshmen enrolling in fall enrolling freshmen time year's class continued Baylor's continued class year's - oal of Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference G SAT average freshman incoming 1100 to 1250. from score 1236. was year school this Average This quality, academic for trend upward of score SAT average record with a admitted need both for sources more develop and merit admitted for rate the yield Increasing to 24 applicants freshmen of quality levels current maintaining of admission and rate First 1236, of scores SAT average 2011 had 2001. in fall 1176 from an increase – r ases in undergraduate ases committee is committee tactics employed to finance to employed tactics The decision to raise tuition by tuition raise to decision Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference much of the growth and improvement and of the growth much 2012 Baylor during realized incre substantial tuition set, was goal tuition specific 1.) No to $11,370 from risen has but tuition to increase 2.) voted year. $28,720 per tuition undergraduate & Benefits Committee is responsible Committee Benefits & Senate the Faculty to for presenting a endorsement and review for tuition the in range recommended increase. in the an increase recommending fo to 6.5% of 4.5% range tuition. undergraduate Explain (2) meeting. Regents of Board 8% at Principal Faculty Senate’s Instructional Budget Instructional Senate’s Faculty College Baylor University Baylor American University 75 75 Rank The Price of Prestige 224 03 - 2 - Review 09 - 10 (2) 3 - document ancial Faculty Senate Faculty minutes and 12 Senate Faculty minutes Fin Secondary source Secondary - 9 - s ’ plan t ection with ection Source document TCU Environmental in scan conn strategic Presiden the of State 1 University . This , up , were % % . . . . r of As the As % in 2006. The in 2006. % compared to last to compared – the top 10% of their high of 10% top the eptance rate was 44 was rate eptance admission selectivity admission 26,514 – evious record of 1213. Since 1999, Since of 1213. record evious Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference high achieving students achieving high freshmen incoming our 64% of in graduated 2005 62% in from up classes, school 1219, compared with last year's last with 1219, compared pr Baylor for SAT score the average Baylor 50 points. hasrisen freshmen of number record had a also freshman fall 2007 the for applications class applications. total21,451 of year's acc Baylor's 42.4 from slightly 65.7 accepted university 72.4 while in 2005, applicants in 2004 accepted come could selectivity TCU, For an to attract strategies from either academic higher with pool admissions o backgrounds achievement price. involve to is likely low, is relatively price tuition current this to accomplish possible it may in increases with significant strategy to assistance increasing while price The (2) ...... institutions. to announce modest to announce arison Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference Planning University has been able to increase to able has been University charges other and rate tuition its other than faster significantly up with as a catch partly institutions, comp other and board and room tuition TCU’s in lowest the almost are charges institutions. to peer comparison (1) the are What (2) increases. tuition future regarding plans university’s (1)TCU has a low tuition and tuition low a has (1)TCU with compared charge residential institutions. similar other College University of University Tulsa Texas Christian Texas University 86 82 Rank The Price of Prestige 225 - 29 - 11 - 4 - Senate document Faculty 2 minutes Committee 4 Committee 2011 Secondary source Secondary 13 - 26 - Source 2 document PR 09 . . 50 - ed since 2005, ed since ive that TU has been TU that ive a level much closer to closer much level a capita National Merit capita National - — applications have gone up gone have applications 50 average of 38.3%, as of 38.3%, 50 average admission selectivity admission performing 50% of students 50% of performing - Likewise, TU’s freshman ACT freshman TU’s Likewise, - 2005, the Top 50 schools Top 2005, the year in the last three years. That, in That, years. three last in the - In Last year TU ranked 12th in the in 12th TU ranked year Last % Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference turn, is allowing DU to be more to be DU allowing isturn, as process admission its in selective for compete students and more more freshman the in 1,120 seats the same class. . . . 79% 60% to from anywhere showed edging are we So measure. on this this on range 50 Top into deeper metric. climb have also scores Top into squarely moving and are the represents range score This levels. middle . . per in nation It entering freshmen. among Scholars impress is equally student high such to achieve able increasing greatly while quality 2005, we Since selectivity. admission from rate admission our lowered have to 46% 75% Top the 2005. in reported First 61 tuition increase tuition % a 3.74 Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference Includes tuition levels? tuition College University of University Denver 91 Rank The Price of Prestige 226 Council minutes meeting 2001 - Staff 13 - document 13 - 29 - 2012 Advisory meeting, a. Minutes, b. 10/19/10; of Minutes Academic Council 12 Faculty Senate Faculty meeting 1 Secondary source Secondary - - - 13 of - 13 - 01 emic 12 - ittee release, 2 release, 18 emic utive - Source Acad 13 - document Press 15 Acad Council meeting 01 PR 1 PR Exec Comm the 12 Senate 10 focus loans, (2) Have (2) of undergraduate of % receive financial aid financial receive and virtually every virtually and – freshman class with an with class freshman – ACT score of 26.1 score ACT admission selectivity admission Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference (2nd item: enrollment and selectivity. and enrollment item: (2nd 10% of top the in ratios Selectivity indicators the are classes school high of achievement brightest average academic to improve trying is also UD quality. 80 than More students freshman grants, scholarships, through employment. and campus regarding discussions any been there with the along students of the quality to want We goals? enrollment students of in a balance on bringing rather experience of quality have who in bodies bringing just than % peer institutions. peer increase ng the tuition increase of 3.9% increase tuition the ng Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference President reviewed the following the reviewed President Tuition items: Our tuition increase of 4.4% was in was 4.4% of increase tuition Our middle the in is UD also. the middle of group of the 4.5 increase will rates Tuition 1. ) setti College University of the University Pacific University of St. University Thomas University of University Dayton St. Louis 112 112 112 Rank 101 The Price of Prestige 227 document Secondary source Secondary egic Strat Source Board of Board document 2005 approved plan by Trustees of our of % to increase the applicant pool applicant the to increase e from its current 8,000 current its e from admission selectivity admission Reference to student quality and quality to student Reference We currently admit 22 admit We currently good us in very placing applicants, best of the with some company we As country. the in universities will we body, student the expand and marketing a recruiting adopt strategy timover a number to received applications our that assure to to 10,000 closer is preserved selectivity Reference to tuition increase to tuition Reference iversity College Rice Un Rice Rank 18 The Price of Prestige 228 of - s , ’ 2001 ersity il 2010 source - document Secondary Univ Chicago Magazine Apr President 1 message 18 04 12 - - 12 28 - - Penn Source document PR 3 PR 1. Almanac, 23 March 2004 2. PR 1 PR Continuing with Identity of Source Document Source of Identity with competing for the top for the competing attract and retain the retain and attract Output inflation environment and environment inflation - and staff in the face of face the in and staff in the world . . . . We must have We must . . . . the world in ing the goals of Building on of Building the goals ing iversity's low iversity's 1. Penn's Penn's resources are dedicated to dedicated are resources Penn's 1. Penn's achiev the Agenda, The Leadership Excellence: excellence for guidelines University's include: These 2007. through Eisgruber said the budget provides for provides the budget said Eisgruber a pools: salary two through increases salary the reflects that pool base modest Un will that pool central enhanced a slightly the University help faculty best pressures. competitive external and amount size class small the Maintain we whom faculty by of teaching distinguished be to expect simultaneously are We in research. scholars them retain and to attract the ability Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference 14, which – at the University of University the at Tuition Appendix H: Tuition Increases and Faculty Quality or Research Quality or and Faculty Increases Tuition Appendix H: Faculty Quality, Excellence, Research Awards or Research or Awards Research Excellence, Quality, Faculty Undergraduate tuition Undergraduate 5% by rise will Chicago increase will charges undergraduate Total 4.4% Princeton University trustees approved the approved trustees University Princeton 2013 for budget operating to in tuition, increase percent a 3.9 includes $40,170. College University of University Pennsylvania University of University Chicago Princeton University “Tuition Increase” and Increase” “Tuition 1 7 5 1 Rank Table H for Data The Price of Prestige 229 ident source document Secondary Remarks by Remarks Pres Source document - hile public 2.) W 2.) Recruit and retain and Recruit we also hired eminent hired also we faces between people and people between faces ranging as the development as the ranging - quality scholar teachers; scholar quality based inter based - ttracting the finest students and students finest the ttracting touch objects virtual #3. Prioirity Strategic the highest recruitment of top faculty in social faculty top of recruitment information science, physical science, the humanities; and science a Penn, to scholars Penn new Two . . . . members faculty our joined professors Knowledge Integrates University Och S. Daniel year: this ranks a world Berger, Shelley Dr. Professor Dr. and researcher, genetics renowned influential a globally Glanz, Karen the more with . . . . Along scholar health awards research total in million than $750 resources new receives, currently Penn that in ARRA date to $169.1 million . . . . With will Penn 333 grants, from funding science, in progress to drive continue Awards and medicine. engineering, research diverse fund will far thus received far as projects intervention behavior of health opinion public of analysis the technologies, of creation the and therapy, about gene Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference Tuition Tuition increases annually and we count and we annually increases Tuition revenues) (projected inthat College Dartmouth College 10 Rank The Price of Prestige 230 09 - 1 - source document Secondary Resources to Committee president Kim 12 Kim of Report Univ. 09 - 25 2010 - Source document 2008 strategic plan Strategic plan PR 2 PR . . . . . Aspirations bring the best bring is a key objective of the of objective a key is n the top ten. Four of our Four ten. top the n the top ten in its relevant ranking. (In the (In ranking. relevant in its ten top the fields 19 graduate rankings, 1995 NRC i ranked currently programs or schools professional C. S. the Position second.). or first rank Management of School Graduate Johnson support world class research. class world support leading for reputation Enhanced for 2019: faculty. for… pay help will increase cost The faculty best the retaining and recruiting continue to resources additional Provides faculty of goal Brown’s to address . . . research. and teaching in excellence to aim searches These Brown. to teachers and scholars faculty of the competitiveness Improving at Brown salaries at Brown, salaries years, recent . In Plan. . . than rapidly more risen have on average, institutions peer at those National ten top the in 25 fields Place 2015, by rankings (NRC) Council Research in school professional every placing while Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference to Tuition Seek other sources of revenue in order revenue of sources other Seek increases tuition unsustainable avoid Undergraduate tuition will increase by increase will tuition Undergraduate 3.6% a 3.9% recommends committee The charges undergraduate in increase College Cornell University Brown University Northwestern University 16 14 12 Rank The Price of Prestige 231 - 7 - 5 source document Secondary minutes 12 Faculty Senate - 2 12 - 7 - 19 Source - document chancellor 8 Thresher 23 Message the from top ten in top ten . 2010 plan: our 2010 plan: . of Sciences quality of faculty, of quality and research reveal a mixed reveal research and in National Institute of Health (2) Two (2) Health of Institute in National instruction of graduate ranking recent The record. lag still ... we shows the NRC by programs areas. in most competition our well behind and Law School to rise into the into rise to School and Law rankings international and national years to seven five within and enhance to sustain is priority highest recognition special with excellence faculty scholarship research, in to excellence given education and graduate creativity funding, in research $557mn secured we top in the placement Vanderbilt's driving 10 the to elected been have colleagues of our Academy national the Increasing our in Growth and support. programs, generate will body student undergraduate university, the for opportunities strategic those select we that vital is and it such One carefully. opportunities our of size the in an increase is opportunity of programs our of scrutiny Close faculty. Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference Tuition Coupled with a tuition increase (1.9%, our (1.9%, increase a tuition with Coupled 25 years) than more in lowest tuition raising in factor important most The Vision" "the into is investments College Rice University Rice Vanderbilt University 18 17 Rank The Price of Prestige 232 - 26 - The , 9 , 21, 2014 The ce source document Secondary SP approved SP May (2) Georgetown Voi 13; (3) Hoya - - s ’ 28 - 2 12 - 09 - 15 Source - document President the to letter community 2 The Brandeis Shoot 13 Remarks by Remarks President 9 DeGioia; 25 , nd recruiting attract and attract and staff l said (2) Strategic Plan Strategic (2) said l tuition and faculty salaries faculty and tuition quality faculty quality retain the best faculty a faculty the best retain - A year ago, we identified three strategic three identified we ago, year A released online next Wednesday. “What the “What Wednesday. next online released will much how on is voting really Board’s Flage charge,” we and in Faculty Investment Renew 3: Goal will Brandeis Excellence: Staff top retain imperatives: we work unrelentingly to unrelentingly work we imperatives: academic of our quality the enhance to University (2) and research. programs student increase that stressed Deacon (3) Nevertheless, necessary still are increases spending some to in order academic Georgetown’s maintain excellence. our students additionto supporting In to keep needed greatly are resources by competitive Mellon Carnegie faculty winning award retaining and opportunities research emerging supporting and vote will Board the meeting, March its At a review also and proposal budget on the to be scheduled plan, strategic the draft of Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference rose 3 percent, 3.5 3 percent, rose Tuition board of trustees meeting, trustees of board University officials are exploring the exploring are officials University fees and tuition 4 percent of another model at proposal budget their of part as increase March the 2013, respectively 4% of increase tuition a voted Board The (3) Georgetown, however, diverged from diverged however, (3) Georgetown, Tuition trend. this and 2012 2011, in percent and 4.5 percent College Brandeis University University Carnegie Mellon Carnegie Georgetown University 32 23 20 Rank The Price of Prestige 233 ; 2013 ober source Board of Board document Secondary to Trustees Oct Strategic plan Strategic - 22 - 1 ident’s Source document remarks to remarks faculty Senate 08 Pres includes . In New York New . In eminent and eminent in approaches pre quality and faculty and quality students we must strengthen must we students and o attract and retain the very best the retain and o attract I envision a University of Rochester that Rochester of envision a University I State, we rank third overall with a total of total with a third overall rank we State, development and research in $367 million School) (Eng year. fiscal the 2006 in funds T faculty must we profile, our research and enlarge dedicated to research, scholarship, and scholarship, research, to dedicated and (departments in those Invest creation. be can that divisions) they if even in others, excellence pursue increase to are small, University. the throughout satisfaction the one of unequivocally is 10 years within universities research outstanding 20 most in leadership national States, United in the or areas research several neuroscience, including sciences health research, translational and clinical in and dentistry, nursing, orthopaedics, cancer, biology, vaccine in areas specific The . . . . science and cardiovascular faculty of Rochester University scholars outstanding most the of some the nation in teachers and Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference Tuition The University of Rochester has been has of Rochester University The tuition moderate to efforts its in unrelenting increases College University of University Rochester 32 Rank The Price of Prestige 234 to 10 - source 25 - document Secondary President’s letter community 2 06 - 16 Source - document The Brown The and White 2 tions and tions have better have is to is and facilities and to offer better offer to and and facilities ic positions at top 20 business 20 top at ic positions dramatic increases in federal funding for funding federal in increases dramatic the as energy, such areas in research care. and health infrastructure environment, accomplishment and expertise has Lehigh to working are and we areas, in these . . . . fields these in funding research obtain fortify and energize our PhD programs, and programs, our PhD and energize fortify our strengthen and broaden must we (Simon) The programs. undergraduate in top 10 in the ranks routinely School cita faculty capita of per terms member, faculty per downloads for fifth accounting, as fields such in particularly and managerial management, risk finance, business top is the Simon economics. the of terms in world the in school secure who graduates of PhD its percentage academ schools race arms in an up caught are “Universities said. Dearden students,” to attract way the out that figured have “Universities students better to attract faculty good attracting aid. And merit students federal (2)The expensive.” is students contains plan stimulus government’s Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference 2010 will 2010 – Tuition 07 increase in the cost of the cost in increase 07 – Lehigh, 2.) The undergraduate The 2.) Lehigh, attending 2009 for fees and tuition year. last over 2.9 percent by increase 1). No one particular factor is responsible factor particular one 1). No the 2006 for College Lehigh University 41 Rank The Price of Prestige 235 - , 12 ’ on " source 2004. - document Secondary minutes 1 President Lownes report the at "Life Top Faculty Senate s 5 : ’ 09 200 - – 30 faculty - Source document Senate Annual Report President the of State University to 10 2004 faculty imilarly, cience and engineering, and cience We continue to become a more and more a more to become We continue the that think . . . . I university selective to ability its and university, the of future the . . . . greatness of level the achieve President Vice of position created newly Our Strategic Plan outlines a trajectory for a trajectory outlines Plan Strategic Our residential a premier to become Lehigh of international university research our advance to intend . We . . distinction. our enhancing by footprint intellectual graduate increasing portfolio, research studies new the that reported Abdelal Provost sent has been magazine research all leaders, academic to nationwide s of deans provosts, of indication 2. One presidents. and some research improved is the our success Provost As faculty. of our productivity the university of state his in cited Abdelal has funding research external our address, S year. in one 15% jumped the to address in his Freeland, President the to referred community, university Northeastern of success” “stunning researchers senior University’s Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference Tuition 05 less than Northeastern (4.5%). Northeastern than less 05 – And you know I think it’s important that it’simportant think I know you And the highest, as page front the off get we university expensive most Only four of these institutions gave institutions these four of Only for increases fees and tuition percentage 2004 College University George Washington Northeastern University 52 49 Rank The Price of Prestige 236 12 - source 7 - document Secondary Waco Herald Waco 5 - 19 - Source document PR 7 PR 2010 e " Stone to continue to ess." Since 2002, Since ess." for new faculty new for hed neuroscientist launched a launched hed neuroscientist as we continue to increase our increase to continue as we quality faculty and staff, and faculty quality - lping the university achieve th achieve the university lping said. "We are also recruiting more recruiting also are "We said. students graduate qualified academically allow will stipends competitive and more succ this continue us to have doctoral programs the university's faculty and 14 to 24, from increased for Research, Dr. Leo Chalupa, a Chalupa, Leo Dr. for Research, distinguis help will which unit, supporting grant new (2) their grants. write faculty scholarly of our stature the to raise our of visibility the and contributions faculty reception selectivity. member faculty to talked . . . . I members either from was who member faculty after top the one of or institution League an Ivy institutions public higher support will budget addition,the In graduate for stipends competitive and more for funding increased and assistantships to priority "The budget workers. student recent in salaries for funding increase downturn, economic the during even years, is he retaining and attracting of goal strategic high Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference 2010 – Tuition year's budget, which takes effect June effect takes which budget, year's budget adopted by Baylor Regents last Regents Baylor by adopted budget increases on tuition heavily relied (2). year. of Baylor objectives the meet to and debt 2012 Next or million $13.8 of increase an 1, reflects 2009 the original over 3.55 percent College Baylor University 75 Rank The Price of Prestige 237 2) 11. ( - ancial 25 11 & - - source 17 - document Secondary Faculty Senate minutes 2 (3) 8 (4) Fin Review s - ’ of the of 09 - 11 - 9 Source - document trustees 2 trustees 05 President State University 1 Report by Report to president t he for a for 50 time - - expanded faculty expanded year commencement, we commencement, year - up packages to attract to packages up - track and term faculty and term track - to departments. pand the compensation schedule compensation the pand quality faculty; quality strong year in Ph.D. production. A production. Ph.D. in strong year - ylor needs to triple or quadruple its quadruple or triple to needs ylor university, Provost Blais described that t that described Blais Provost university, brings hires new the of quality recognition on pace are we that appears it 1) First, very mid month’s last publications in major journals grew from journals grew major in publications Provost 2011. in to 636 200 a year 2 No. the university's Davis, Elizabeth said the president, after officer academic Ba enter to and production spending research company elite that this plan, the strategic with Consistent full increased for: provides budget resources; instructional enhance to faculty start increased high in $425,000 support; research and student to ex FY12 tenure for new each year million $1.1 year. first the during more packages recruiting faculty to make travel faculty to continue and competitive awards. a top becoming of the goal Toward Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference Tuition We are planning to announce modest to announce planning We are increases tuition There will be a 3.8 percent increase in increase a 3.8 percent be There will tuition law and graduate, undergraduate, rates College University of University Tulsa American University 86 75 Rank The Price of Prestige 238 - - 02 2011 2011 source - - document Secondary Senate meeting minutes 04 Committee 4 Committee 29 3/7/07 Source document PR intensive, - ways you increase the increase ways you 08 academic year. Depending year. 08 academic (2) We have six priority areas priority six We have (2) – we want to increase this by 50 by this to increase want we issues include hiring, include issues ver the next five years. 5. years. five next the ver — — intensive institutions,” Kvistad institutions,” intensive - mic quality is to invest in the best in the invest to is quality mic ished seven new interdisciplinary new seven ished research o percent Faculty salaries. and development, graduated 18 Ph.D.s, compared to 18 for all for to 18 compared 18 Ph.D.s, graduated 2007 of the be may we count, doctoral spring on our TU year Last year. record at a looking establ Security, Information institutes: research Energy, Alternative Nanotechnology, Entrepreneurship, International Computational and Bioinformatics Trauma, Differences, Individual Biology, Neglect. and Abuse expanding includes also investment The Kvistad ranks, faculty the and enhancing labor are “Universities says. people the of “One says. acade professors. became Coombe Robert after established or new are these none of Chancellor; Faculty 1...... 2...... 3...... 4. surprising: Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference hed. percent tuition increase tuition percent - Tuition DU’s Board of Trustees in January in Trustees of Board DU’s 6.075 a approved finis is virtually budget FY12 The (2) increase. tuition percent a 3.74 includes It College Denver University of University 91 Rank The Price of Prestige 239 11 - 18 - source document Secondary PR 11 PR - 2015 2013 – Source document Student Senate discussed tuition increase Campus Times 3/15/13 2010 Strategic Plan 17 hire but Improve academic and academic Improve a more expensive university, but university, expensive a more sk for a higher salary it is it coming salary a higher for sk Recruit, develop, and retain an retain and Recruit, develop, increase faculty scholarship out there,” out scholarship faculty increase to trying not are “We said. Shabahang as appear value,” of more institution as an Ia: First of 5 strategic directions. A. Improve A. directions. 5 strategic First of and Performance and Research Academic Reputation: to increased leading performance research student in of excellence reputation (e.g., care and health research learning, universities) top 50 national among ranked educational overall the of and globalization experience. to want They effect. is a cumulative It faculty the brightest and the best that them tell and back come always they so whenever dependent tuition 90% are we a they the students from a in dollars tuition those spend to We have degree the of value to the add that will way national increase earn, students those recognition, name increase visibility, Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference 2013 academic 2013 – increase every year? every increase Tuition Undergraduate tuition will increase another increase will tuition Undergraduate the 2012 for 6.5 percent year continuously 4C1: priority Strategic Is tuition going to tuition going Is None College Pace University Pace Verne University of La University University of University Francisco San St. Louis University 173 161 117 101 Rank The Price of Prestige 240 source document Secondary Source document strategic plan career - • Ia1: • tion tenure review; and tenure review; - sive program of program sive and post - structural hallmarks of a Pace education of a Pace hallmarks structural outstanding and diverse faculty diverse and outstanding a manner in lines faculty available Allocate of strengths academic the build will that most its and further the University • Ia2: initiatives. academic important a comprehen Develop of their stages at all faculty for support on touch will a program Such careers. competitive qualifications; faculty evolving mid compensation; and recruitment scholarship; and development professional promo and tenure the diversity; mid process; Emphasize Ia3: • planning. retirement the diversity and scholarship and research Ia4: • take. may such activity of forms faculty of breadth and number the Increase emphasize that opportunities development the to above. referred Reference to faculty quality or research or quality faculty to Reference Tuition improve Pace’s annual Pace’s improve growth, revenue through results financial pricing, tuition competitive College Rank The Price of Prestige 241 source document Secondary - 27 - 09 04 2 - - 09 12 - - Source document 1. Minutes of 1. Minutes of Board Trustees meeting 12 2 PR PR 3 PR Buildings Plans for Plans The Life The Through research ing projects. ing with Identity of Source Document Source of Identity with Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference Sciences Center remain under review under remain Center Sciences Like many of its peer institutions, the institutions, of peer its many Like by challenged being is also University and labs its to upgrade costs rising libraries. of construction $39m Authorized related equipment other and projects capital continue to made been have Decisions build some continue; will Center Sciences medical and the center Arts Visual the Tuition 2013 – Appendix J: Tuition Increases and Prestige Seeking and Prestige Increases Tuition Appendix J: Undergraduate tuition will be $38,445, an be $38,445, will tuition Undergraduate 4.8% of increase Undergraduate tuition will increase to $ increase will tuition Undergraduate 30123 Fees, Tuition, Authorize to Resolution for Academic Charges Student and Other 2012 Year College College Pennsylvania Dartmouth University of University Chicago of University “Tuition Increase” and Reference to Building and Construction Activity and Construction to Building and Reference Increase” “Tuition 10 5 7 Rank Table J1 Table for Data The Price of Prestige 242 s ersity source document Secondary president Report of Report Univ Resource to Committee - 15 12 - - 7 - 5 Source document Faculty Senate Faculty minutes 3 news Rice 13 Newsletter 306014 — coffee and coffee million capital plan capital million - research Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference Some buildings were also approved also were buildings Some physics building, a renovated athletics a renovated building, physics coffee student an expanded facility, faculty where pavilion a central house, for meet and students skyspace Turrell James a conversation, a lighting and art, public and other Capital improvements in facilities on facilities in improvements Capital the such as campus Homewood labs teaching undergraduate an of the midst in is Brown $800 approximately aging renew facilities, to renovate new several build infrastructure, strategic acquire and facilities, expansion campus for properties will project plaza Center Medical the soon. start has years five the past over has Rice a recreation facility, a dining added a building, research a bioscience center, 13 – Tuition 14 school year will be will year school 14 – undergraduate charges undergraduate year period tuition has augmented an augmented has tuition period year undergraduate education. undergraduate tuition undergraduate University’s Rice the 2013 for 2012 from 4.5 percent $38,260, up at annual average rate of 3.8% rate average at annual a 3.8% recommends committee The in increase on the a report gave McCarty Provost They April. in Trust meeting of Board for (1.9%) increase tuition the approved Tuition for full time Hopkins time full for Tuition over $45,470. at stands undergraduates the 3 College Rice University Rice Vanderbilt University University Johns Hopkins University Brown 18 17 12 14 Rank The Price of Prestige 243 - 25 - source document Secondary Remarks by Remarks president 9 DeGioia 09 - - 6 - – s 2 13 - 28 ancial - from the from 2 Source 2006 three - 12 document Board of Board - 1 - Letter to the president community 15 Heights The student 4 newspaper 06 Brandei The Shoot 2 fin year plan presented to Trustees $60mm; Center for Center – $26mm from $26mm – pletion research Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference Officials justified the tuition hike as hike tuition the justified Officials the of reopening the for to pay necessary Pool Linsey and the Museum Art Rose system for nighttime recreation on recreation for nighttime system fields playing intramural several including of $736mm plan Capital "gifts/other.” and debt by 50/50 financed com center Law Eg center arts Performing renovation housing student gifts; $19mm Gates the as such Facilities Center Hillman the and science human campo Kraus the technologies, future for hall Doherty in to labs and renovations medical increasing prices, gas High university every of desire the and costs, has and facilities faculty its to expand cost of the upward drive relentless led a education, of a higher approve a approve 2007 school year school 2007 – Tuition combination of existing budgets, existing of combination Total fees for the 2006 the for fees Total tuition for 6.2 percent by increase will increase to voted Board the Last year, students 4.1 returning on fees and tuition students 4.85 incoming and percent percent. via a via the increases, enrollment increases, tuition a 6.0% includes Plan 2007 Financial FY undergraduate the for increase tuition program to today voted board The of 4% increase tuition The Main Campus continues to be funded to be continues Campus Main The College College Brandeis University University Boston Carnegie Mellon Georgetown University 32 31 23 20 Rank The Price of Prestige 244 source document Secondary - 11 - - s 10 ’ of the of Source 2013 document - President State 9 University 30 Board of Board Trustees meeting, plan strategic approval 13 ill research four new major facilities four major new - gional hospital affiliations, most affiliations, hospital gional Medical Center has been has Center Medical Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference Work on the new Engineering Product Engineering new on the Work way under is (EPIC) Center Innovation and w Avenue at 750 Commonwealth new The January. by be completed at 233 Center Reception Admissions the of renovation (a State Road Bay Twenty or completed been have projects aggregate an 2005 with since initiated including million, of $723 budget Theatre Eastman Hall, Goergen LeChase and Expansion, Renovation Hall. O’Brien and Hall, Hall, Rettner The facilities new with active particularly Wilmot P. James the including projects, Research the Saunders Center, Cancer Children’s the Golisano and Building, an of implementation Hospital, and system, Records Medical Electronic re new Thompson. with F.F. notably Balance New the opened we Last month Kilachand and Campus West on Field new the as Hall) Shelton (formerly Hall College. Honors Kilachand of the home Tuition adjusted tuition increases have increases tuition adjusted - We began this year with a 3.7 percent 3.7 a with year this We began increase. tuition undergraduate percent; during the last five years, five last the during percent; inflation 2.1 averaged Between 2004 and 2008, for example, the example, for 2008, 2004 and Between schools, at our increases tuition ofrate 4.2 averaged inflation, for adjusted when College University Boston University of University Rochester 41 32 Rank The Price of Prestige 245 - - s 22 ’ - 8 source 10 - document Secondary President’s the of State University to speech faculty 10 assembly 05 President to address faculty 12; - emic State ’s Source 09 document - Chief Acad Officer of the University to speech faculty 10 assembly 30 e r the ic Health ic research Weatherhead Residence Hall on the on Hall Residence Weatherhead Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference 2) The programmatic plans for the new for plans The programmatic 2) fo and plans Commons Residential halls resident of current transformation format Commons Residential the into academic this during be completed will former Hillel House) also will open in open will also House) Hillel former the above, mentioned As January. Building Redstone the of construction Th way. under is of Law the School for in occupancy for on schedule is project classrooms, 2014.Renovated summer field athletic new housing, student med The is and completed was campus uptown students undergraduate our by occupied are we know, you as the queue, 1) In and Science for facilities at new looking at new looking are we Engineering, Publ of School the for facilities for home a new 2)building and Health. Health and Health of Public the School be acting will trustees . . . . Services from week a over little just a upon in a create to proposal the is and that now Complex Engineering and Science – revenues several Tuition make it possible for people to afford to to afford people for it possible make our price. pay current the for increases tuition Average next the for believe and I year, know I nationwide. reduced be will years, closely looking in interested is our Board the 2013 for increase any of level at our We can’t expect to increase tuition at tuition increase to expect We can’t yea every more 5% or about as aid student much as We provide is that the problem But . . . . else anyone tuition of our out it taking we’re to our price to raise having are and so we College Methodist University Southern Washington University Tulane University George 60 52 52 Rank The Price of Prestige 246 plan 2012 , egic source document Secondary May 11 May Strat - 22 nate - 2 to Se to the to Source document briefing student and the VP F by A Letter campus community the chair from of Board of the Trustees Report of Report houses As I As ayed. foot facility foot - research square - Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference A separate action, the board approved a approved board the action, separate A allow will that funding capital for plan for the home a new of completion the for at the Law of College Washington campus. Tenley year. Construction of the tennis center tennis the of Construction year. of side far the on center data and new has site Bakery Baird’s Mrs. the been del unfortunately the occasions, several on mentioned has campus of our part southeast and the Park, Highland Park, University together coming of Dallas City major two pursued University The Baylor during projects facilities science Sciences the Baylor was first The 2012. fall 2004. in opened which Building, This 500,000 Chemistry, of Biology, the Departments Geology, Science, Environmental Psychology/Neuroscience, and Physics, classrooms, 33 and includes and offices, faculty 160 approximately research and teaching than 150 more labs Tuition The board approved a 2.9 percent increase percent a 2.9 approved board The in tuition Explain decision to raise tuition by 8% at by tuition raise to decision Explain meeting. Regents of Board 2014 year, which has implications for our for implications has which 2014 year, budgets. College American University Baylor University 75 75 Rank The Price of Prestige 247 source document Secondary - - 7 - 26 3 - 91 13 and - - 18 15 - - Source ident’s 2 document PR 1 PR Pres to letter 1 students 12 PR 13 Campus Community Magazine 07 ons office classrooms, a true classrooms, research Herrick Campus Center will Center Campus Herrick - Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference Murray Admissi the with continue, floor second the to this summer moving staff aid Hall. Financial of Herrick of floor first to the moved members year. last Herrick That investment includes research labs, research includes investment That resources library over is investing university The academic to improve $100mm housing programs, to facilities improving also We are modern more include athletic remodeled and center, student facilities in million $5.7 spend will Thomas St. for million $1.3 and projects building of renovation The equipment. capital l students Tuition tuition will increase 6.9% increase will tuition Tuition rates will increase 4.5 percent for percent 4.5 increase will rates Tuition of an average and students undergraduate graduate for 3.3 percent Thomas St. the summer, this beginning Thursday decided Trustees of Board investment in the “educationa the in investment wrote Kvistad Gregg Provost experience,” parents and to students letter in a February increases. the announcing Undergraduate an approved has Trustees of Board 2.75% of increase The tuition and fee increases help to help increases and fee tuition The continued University’s the sustain College University of St. University Thomas Loyola University Chicago St. Louis University University of University Denver 112 101 101 91 Rank The Price of Prestige 248 , State of State source 11 University - document Secondary 1 - Senate meeting Senate 2 2012 the - Source 13 document - Campus Times Campus 3/15/13 Campus Observer 3/17/10 State of the of State 9 University 11 art - story - of the - of - research . renovations to the Ortmayer to . renovations age north of Swirbul Library. of Swirbul north age ng garage and a 472 seat food seat and a 472 garage ng Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference Stadium a 4 on has begun Construction parki has been way The building. services off Way center. aquatic the for cleared We completed $250 million $250 We completed capital major and construction $90 only with improvements fixed at that of and all debt, of million approved Board (2) rates. interest of an selection with the proceeding building, academic a new for architect underground and Center, Welcome gar parking help facilities new that We know in Dance seen have we as enrollment, of construction the after and Music Arts Center. the Performing AUPAC, for facility a new opened We also in Work and Social Nursing state with Poughkeepsie, growth enrollment for opportunities there. increase Verne the La behind Reasons . . . include Tuition increase The Board of trustees has approved a approved has trustees of Board The tuition 4.9% tuition 2.3% a approved trustees of Board full Board the Regarding (2) increase. is there that reported Dwyer Dr. meeting, year. this deficit budget a substantial There is a limit to how high we can raise can we high how to a limit is There tuition College of Technology of University of La University Verne Institute Florida Adelphi University 161 167 152 Rank The Price of Prestige 249 source document Secondary - 15 - 2 Source document Trustees Minutes 13 Board of Board research Not only is this a good this is only Not Reference to faculty quality or quality faculty to Reference urkey Creek. urkey campus, we have built a new rapelling a new built have we campus, Dwyer Pres. (2) ROTC. the for tower the that stating by report his closed on property has purchased university T that speculation is there but investment, the while used can be there facilities the refurbished. is being Building Link is spent was time Considerable for ways alternative some discussing Leopold for Brother loan the financing Hall Tuition increase of 3.5% will be part of be part will of 3.5% increase A tuitionA year. next the budget Accordingly, the Board approved a tuition approved the Board Accordingly, increase. College St. Mary's of University Minnesota 173 Rank The Price of Prestige 250 12 - 10 - 11 2 - - source document PR 2 PR PR 3 PR Secondary - 27 - 2 ersity Source 08 esident, document meeting 12 of Report Univ Resources to Committee pr February 20 Minutes of Minutes of Board Trustees mittee’s curricular - Document new department new Source luded developing luded Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference recommendations for scholarly activities scholarly for recommendations and enrich expand that will and programs co and curricular Brown’s to related activities and research offerings legacy. its and slavery of the history Com this of extent full the Although Dr. Marrow also presented a resolution for a resolution presented also Marrow Dr. of Business Department the for approval in the Policy and Public Economics The School. Wharton existing the school’s merge would Policy Public and Business of departments Management. and Risk and Insurance of the report the to its response In on Slavery Committee Steering University itself committed the University Justice, and initiative teaching and research to “a major the spring, Last justice.” and on slavery whose a Committee appointed Provost inc charge , and Identity of and Identity , and fees to fees and board, 2009. Appendix K: Tuition Increases and New Programs Tuition Increases Appendix K: Tuition – recommended that the that recommended increase in total student charges of 3.9%, charges student total in increase room, tuition, bringing for 2008 $47,740 The committee The and tuition undergraduate raise University board, and room, including total charges 3.9%. by fees an therefore, recommends, URC The College “Tuition Increase” and Reference to New Schools or Programs Schools to New and Reference Increase” “Tuition 1 Brown University University of University Pennsylvania 14 7 Rank Table K Table for Data The Price of Prestige 251 13 - 15 - source document PR 3 PR 2008 strategic plan Secondary . 23 Source – document Rice Magazine 8, pp issue 22 while through coordinated, through term efforts on the on term efforts - Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference We announce the formation of the Institute of the formation the We announce help should which research, for Urban social in the achievement greater propel forward move now will Rice … sciences. by identified initiatives new three with health, and human bioscience faculty: recommendations is not yet known, new known, yet is not recommendations be likely will initiative this for funding The (2) years. few next the over required the continue . . . to Brown allows budget of Engineering the School of growth and in cell programs sciences life the Make genomics, computational biology, molecular research biomedical and translational 2015, by stronger significantly in distinction Cornell’s sustaining biology. organismal social applied in strengths existing Sustain specific in and departments science while sciences, social basic in the subfields the of reputation and quality the enhancing overall sciences social the next over recruitments faculty strategic near Focus years. five government. and of economics fields will be $38,260, up $38,260, be will 13, – Tuition 14 school year school 14 – avoid unsustainable tuition increases tuition unsustainable avoid Rice University’s undergraduate tuition for tuition undergraduate University’s Rice the 2013 2012 from 4.5 percent To College Rice University Rice University Cornell 18 16 Rank The Price of Prestige 252 source document Secondary plan f year - 2006 - ancial Source 1 - document 2 three fin to presented o Board Trustees - as in supporting needs of two of needs This academic and academic This . nvironment, and nvironment, students’ curricular goals in the arts. in goals curricular (lighting, technical and set design, set and technical (lighting, to our peers. These departments, These peers. to our and Visual Communication, a dual a Communication, Visual and curricular performing arts center is an arts center performing curricular - Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference departments, Mathematics and Computer Mathematics departments, too small far are sizes whose Science relative expected are Science, Computer especially graduate feature to and size in to grow of vibrant the objective with programs, energy and the e and the energy university The (2) programs. international academic its to expansions made has also Written, for Center a including programs, Oral, the with history in program doctoral degree de Campin Estadual Universidade and health research a bioscience and Brazil Science Professional in the track policy program. Degree Master’s Performing University Georgetown The education as the serve will Arts Center programs, theater for center Georgetown's and arts theater in be offered will Instruction stagecraft etc.) design, costume co education arts expanding in step essential for Georgetown's opportunities undergraduate budgets, Tuition The Main Campus continues to be funded to be continues Campus Main The existing of a combination via 2007 Financial FY the . . . . increases, tuition the for increase tuition a 6.0% includes Plan program undergraduate College Georgetown University 20 Rank The Price of Prestige 253 ober source document Strategic to plan of Board Trustees Oct 2013 Secondary 11 - Senate 25 08 - - Source 22 - document President’s to remarks faculty 1 PR 2 PR – : We have We : Board of Trustees of Board master’s and related programs, related and master’s conomics, evolutionary biology, evolutionary conomics, medical education. 2013 Strategic plan Strategic 2013 education. medical - Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference developed programs that are best in class or class in best are that programs developed political including in class, the best among e science, optics, science, cognitive and brain accounting, finance, orthopedics, vaccine musculoskeletal, neuroscience, Ph.D. programs with strong research with strong programs Ph.D. cultures programs grow and sustain to tuition Uses majors undergraduate new Introduce minors new 14 and majors new Twelve Asian in development: Program introduced. Digital under discussion: Program Studies. Science of Arts College The Studies. Media significant anticipates also and Engineering) in growth in postbaccalaureate a program including pre to presented adjusted - Tuition tuition increases have averaged 2.1 percent averaged have increases tuition of Rochester. University at the Between 2004 and 2008, for example, the example, for 2008, 2004 and Between when schools, at our increases tuition ofrate 4.2 percent; averaged inflation, for adjusted inflation years, five last the during College Rochester Carnegie Mellon Carnegie University of University 23 32 Rank The Price of Prestige 254 source document Secondary Source document - nges ersity humanities disciplines. Rapid disciplines. ue Undergraduate Business ue Undergraduate and Engineering has introduced and Engineering ences Center for Computational Center ences Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference Sciences, Studies, Media in Digital programs new a Biomedical and Science, Computer a with degree master’s Engineering Technology in Medical concentration developed Innovation; development, and RNA biology. New biology. and RNA development, throughout been developed have programs Health the including the University, Sci for Integrated Center the Innovation; the in majors new 14 Computing; Research Engineering, and Sciences Arts, of College relations, international in those including the and studies, media digital health, public Floresc Barry Medical for Center and the Program; by developed jointly Innovation Technology and Dentistry and Medicine of the School and of Engineering School the Hajim 2018, 2013 and Between Sciences. Applied a Univ of development further the include will program Science Data wide by schools several across faculty expanding and professors track tenure and 20 tenured data bridge to facility a new constructing critical across science cha are driving technology in changes Arts, of College The curriculum. new in the Tuition College Rank The Price of Prestige 255 10 - 05 - source document University to speech faculty assembly 10 President’s the of State Secondary - - 5 - 12; 12 - ’s 23 07 - - 09 Source - 08 - document State of the of State University to speech faculty 10 assembly 30 Senate minutes 2010 PR 2 PR 2 Chief Acad. Officer we’ve — ear to invest in invest ear to an action taken action an They established a established They the minor in minor the ...... standing school this school standing through business students business - (2) in many of the university’s of the in many Administrators ams, but we have now launched a School launched now have we but — Our plan is that over five years to move years five over that is plan Our Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference resolution for a new degree program at the program degree a new for resolution School Law laboratories to introduce students to the use the to students introduce to laboratories of humanities service in the of technology scholarship. Investments priorities academic non for business (1) spend to able are we where level the up to y a million $60 an additional our progr spring last Trustees of the Board by program education a nursing had always here a through be going will which of Nursing but year this incubation of of period kind a free become will spring of Board - we , . it means that means it . . . Tuition aid model - The tuition increase is about 3.7% is about increase tuition The It’s a recycling of tuition revenues, the high the revenues, tuition of a recycling It’s priced/high our on tuition much as spend can’t salaries faculty programs, academic infrastructure academic support, faculty College Tulane University George Washington University Lehigh University 52 52 41 Rank The Price of Prestige 256 13 20 – source document 2012 progress on report centennial strategic plan Secondary - 9 - 12 Source document Faculty meeting minutes 09 am to am ship positions ship ow offers a Master offers ow have been raised to help to raised been have Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference to assume scientific and leader and scientific to assume provide will SMU research. in biomedical UTSW will and training, the statistics experience. laboratory the provide The Departments of Chemistry and Chemistry of Departments The the Center formed have Sciences Biological and Delivery Design, Discovery, for Drug Funds (CD4). Joint center. the of the activities support and grant initiated, been have projects for submitted been have proposals School Cox The research. collaborative and program in Finance M.S. its began progr in Management M.S. the revised graduates. recent to appeal of Applied Master a added College Dedman the in Analytics Data and Statistics as well as Department, Science Statistical in the minor reasoning legal and law the The Science. of Political Department n of Physics Department to address Certificate Teacher Physics of teaching the in deficiencies content joint a developing school. in high physics to prepare in biostatistics program doctoral and UTSW SMU both at students graduate (2) overall tuition overall (2) . of considering 6% considering of Tuition he Board approved a tuition increase of increase tuition a approved Board he increases in intuition for each of the two the of each for in intuition increases year next following years 4.7% of increase T the that said Dean The year. for next 5.9% process in the is Board College Southern Methodist University 60 Rank The Price of Prestige 257 PR Regents source document 2010 for Board of meeting Secondary - 2 - Source document Faculty 10 Senate 03 Waco Herald Waco Tribune ree at ree Establishment of an Establishment . out he saw no need for a major a for need out no he saw ince it was just recently just was it ince ograms in the humanities, two humanities, in the ograms - Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference initiation of a study to determine the determine to a study of initiation an Honors establishing of appropriateness of Watson, Director Peggy Senator College. the that explained Program, the Honors on started just is getting program Honors s project this Since 2002, the university's doctoral the university's 2002, Since 14 to 24,. from increased have programs president) (future Sloan that recalls Lyon flat him told or the programs of graduate expansion likely that increases tuition accompanying needed be would social of a school of creation college; honors of PhD the number increased work; including 14 to 23, from it offered programs pr new three the in three in education, in business. and one sciences/engineering, the Baylor today, meeting spring its (2) At to agreed Regents of Board University of Practitioner/Doctor Nurse a new establish deg (NP/DNP) Practice Nursing of School Louise Herrington Baylor's Nursing. the suggests of goals item fifth The Tuition relied heavily on tuition heavily relied TCU would need to have a 5% tuition a have to need would TCU increase .the university of objectives the to meet debt and increases 2012 Baylor College Texas Christian Texas University Baylor University 82 75 Rank The Price of Prestige 258 source anuary document President’s the of State University letter J 2009 Secondary - - 25 3 - 8 Source 07 - document Campus and Campus Community Magazine 7 Faculty Senate minutes 11 50 - also reported that reported also That investment includes research includes investment That new opportunities for faculty for opportunities new TU four year medical school) are school) medical year TU four the goal of becoming a top becoming of the goal – versity, Provost Blais Provost versity, Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference labs, library resources, the Cherrington the resources, library labs, undergraduate program, Scholars Global programs, literacy and quantitative writing center. languages and a proposed. (2)• Harris College of Nursing & of Nursing College (2)• Harris proposed. of Master first its welcomes Sciences Health semester. this class Work Social Toward uni the institutes, research interdisciplinary the of Tulsa School and the museum, Gilcrease as known (previously Medicine Community the OU providing TU. to visibility more bringing and research forward aggressively to move intend We (2) include which priorities, strategic on our development program sustain to help increases and fee tuition The the in investment continued the University’s Gregg Provost experience,” “educational to letter in a February wrote Kvistad the announcing and parents students increases. Tuition We are planning to announce modest tuition modest to announce planning We are increases College University of University Denver University of University Tulsa 91 86 Rank The Price of Prestige 259 - 1 13 - source document minutes 29 Faculty Senate Secondary - - 12 2014 emic – 01 Source - document budget presentation to faculty Senate Acad Council meeting 13 Consolidated Senate faculty 2002 minutes 3 2013 operating budget 2011 Fiscal operating - with School with dept. 14 will also be used be also will 14 – in the College of Arts the College in science Heimburger reported that reported Heimburger ry or most critical such as such critical or most ry building programs in bio programs building recommends the approval of approval the recommends The report was accepted. was report The . Council inquired about status of status about Council inquired The proposed joint program was program joint The proposed . including moving. Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference The committee The and in Diplomacy program joint degree the Asian Studies Program Joint BA/MSAT the of Approval the by recommended as in SOBS/SGME APCC New resources in 2013 in resources New needs divisional in $0.8 million to fund mandato deemed expanded recently the for faculty major Architecture and Science new $8 million • Spending New FY11 (2). D. programs this minimum to a kept was spending new previously from in expenses 1.2 million year in the primarily programs new approved Parks and Health of Public School growth has set engineering of School The goals and engineering and computer engineering is computer merging of Engineering recommendations Tuition 14 budget includes an includes 14 budget – fiscal 2013 fiscal will be made to the board the to made be will tuition a to authorize likely not is Board The 4%; than more of increase Undergraduate tuition increase 4%, (2) 4%, increase tuition Undergraduate in setting goal the that stated Heimburger of 3.9% increase tuition the increase 1 Tuition item the and 3.6% of increase tuition undergraduate College Seton Hall University University of the University Pacific St. Louis University University of San University Diego 128 112 101 91 Rank The Price of Prestige 260 source document Secondary Source document 2012 president’s a of State University; essay Faculty > the The . . which the Provost will Provost the which The vote was remanded until remanded The was vote After a lengthy discussion lengthy a After – – ion was also made to ask the to ask made also ion was academic arena, we have added new have we arena, academic Reference to new programs or schools or programs to new Reference Health Information Technology, and the Technology, Information Health in Master’s Nutrition.